Skip to main content

Full text of "Mormon Democrat: The Religious and Political Memoirs of James Henry Moyle"

See other formats

This edition of 
Mormon Democrat: 

The Religious and Political Memoirs of 
James Henry Moyle 

is strictly limited to 
three hundred fifty copies, 
of which this is copy number 












/ was reared from childhood 
a Mormon Democrat, then called the People’s Party, 
a combination of Democracy and Theocracy and as purely so 
as ever existed. Its chief motto or slogan in political 
campaigns was: “The office should seek the man 
and not the man the office. ” 











Edited by 

Signature Books 
in association with 
Smith Research Associates 
Salt Lake City 

© 1998 Signature Books, Inc. 

All rights reserved. 

Signature Books is a registered trademark of Signature Books, Inc. 

Printed in the United States of America. 

<*> Printed on acid-free paper. 

First printed in 1975 in a limited edition by and for members of the 
James Moyle Genealogical and Historical Association. 

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data 

Moyle, James Henry, 1858-1946. 

Mormon Democrat : the memoirs of James Henry Moyle / edited by 
Gene A. Sessions. 

p. cm. 

Includes bibliographical references and index. 

ISBN 1-56085-023-X $75.00 

1. Moyle, James Henry, 1858-1946. 2. Mormons— Utah— Biography. 

3. Politicians— Utah— Biography. 4. Utah— Biography. 1. Sessions, 

Gene Allred. II. Title. 

F826.M795 1995 




To my father, James Moyle, 
and his two good wives, 

Elizabeth Wood and Margaret Anna Cannell 




Editor’s Preface 


Foreword by Leonard J. Arrington 


Editor’s Prologue 


Editorial Procedures and Acknowledgments 


I My History 


II Young Mormon 


III Missionary 


IV Student 


V Lawyer, Legislator, and Democrat 


VI A Mormon Politician 


VII Assistant Secretary from Utah 


VIII Mission President 


IX New Dealer 


X Observations on the Inheritance of 

Church Leadership 


Biographical Appendix 





I n the more than twenty years 
since the limited edition of Mor- 
mon Democrat: The Religious and Political Memoirs of James Henry 
Moyle was privately released to Moyle family members, I often had 
occasion to wish that it had received a wider distribution. Although 
members of the Moyle family graciously provided copies to librar- 
ies on request, many scholars and others interested in Utah/ 

Mormon history lamented that the volume was not available for 
private collections. The insights ofjames H. Moyle, particularly on 
the subject of religion and politics in Utah, remain powerful and 
cogent even as we enter the last years of the twentieth century. The 
unique influence of the Mormon culture on the politics of the state 
may have changed shape since Moyle’s day, but it continues to 
attract considerable attention with evety political campaign and 
every legislative session. Its value to the historian notwithstanding, 

Moyle’s commentary thus makes much truth of the notion that 
historical understanding broadens perspective and provides im- 
portant background for a useful comprehension of any current 

When Signature Books first suggested that Mormon Democrat 
might fit nicely into its Significant Mormon Diaries Series, co- 
sponsored with Smith Research Associates, I happily contacted 
members of the family, now another generation still from those ix 

Editor s Preface 

with whom I dealt in the early 1970s. Evelyn Moyle Nelson and 
Janies Douglas Moyle, who worked so tirelessly to carry out their 
father’s genealogical and historical wishes, are both gone. Sara 
Moyle Creer’s daughter Alice Creer Young now spearheads the 
extended family effort to further the cause of history. Alice and 
1 have carefully reread the memoirs in order to look one more 
time for consistency and fairness. We both recognized that her 
grandfather wrote with a frankness that could easily offend if 
taken out of context. In the end we concurred with the judgment 
of the previous generation of Moyles that, while pointed in his 
commentary, James H. Moyle meant no offense and sought only 
to express his views in an honest and constructive manner. This 
second edition, therefore, is not a revised edition and contains 
every passage from the first, with all of its candor and wealth of 

This edition does contain some editorial changes, all minor 
and the result of my own evolving tastes in style. I have also added 
to the notes a few essential references to recent scholarship but 
limited that effort also in order to preserve the integrity of the 
original edition. The only other real change from the first edition 
is also in the footnotes. In the interest of space, I have not 
referenced eveiy paragraph as I did in the first. Rather, a string of 
paragraphs from the same memorandum shows the notation at 
the end of the string only, except in cases of additional reference 
or commentary. 

LaRee Keller and Myrna Eberle at Weber State University put 
in much suffering time on the present effort, as did Lesli Pantone 
who employed her considerable editorial skills on the project. I 
can never thank them enough. 



Leonard J. Arrington 

S ometime ago the three living 
children ofjames H. Moyle pre- 
sented his papers to the Historical Department of the Church of 
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Among those papers were many 
letters, memoranda, clippings, biographical manuscripts, and 
other memorabilia. These have been catalogued as the James 
Henry Moyle Collection and are available for the use of the family 
and scholars in the church archives. A guide to these materials has 
been provided to the family. 

With the cooperation of the Mormon History Trust Fund, a 
non-profit fund established to assist in the writing and publishing 
of LDS history, there have been provided for the church archives 
and for family use two publications edited by Gene A. Sessions. 
The first of these is entitled A View of james Henry Moyle: His Diaries 
and Letters. The second is Biographies and Reminiscences from the 
James Henry Moyle Collection. 

Among the Moyle papers donated to the church archives we 
were delighted to find James H. Moyle’s handwritten “Memoirs.” 
This was written over a period of several years after his 1940 
release from service as Assistant to the Secretary of the United 
States Treasury. Brother Moyle wrote the memoirs for his family, 
but he indicates that he also intended them to be read by others 
interested in Utah and Mormon history during the period of his 



life, 1858-1946. Recognizing that the memoirs make an important 
contribution to Mormon, Utah, and American history, the Mor- 
mon History Trust Fund, with financial assistance from the James 
Moyle Genealogical and Historical Association, employed Dr. 
Gene Sessions to use his editorial skill in reorganizing the mate- 
rial so that it would make a smooth and consistent narrative and 
to provide explanatory notes. 

Copies of his edited transcript of the memoirs were then 
furnished to James H. Moyle’s three living children. They have 
made suggestions for the explanatory notes and have also sug- 
gested the elimination of a few short passages which the author 
himself would almost certainly have removed had he lived to 
prepare the manuscript for publication. 

I have read these memoirs with much interest. While James 
H. Moyle was an ardent Democrat whose criticism of Republican 
leaders shows his partisanship, he was also an active and devout 
Latter-day Saint, and the sincerity of his testimony is evidenced 
on every page of these memoirs. Thus, despite passages which 
reveal his partisanship and limited observation, the reader will 
be struck with the sincerity, honesty, and greatness of Elder 
Moyle. Readers will surely accept these memoirs as James H. 
Moyle’s desire to present an honest and faithful record of the 
Utah political scene as he viewed it. Obviously he was critical of 
some persons and of their actions, but he was tentative in ex- 
pressing his opinion and showed magnanimity in forgiving those 
persons he thought may have misused him. The memoirs are 
testimony to the truth of the gospel, the greatness of Latter-day 
Saint leaders, and the importance of the role played by James H. 
Moyle in Utah and national politics. 


I n 1950 Mormon apostle Matthew 
Cowley summarized his impres- 
sions of the late James Henry Moyle in the following terms: “I 
always had to take another look when I passed Brother James H. 
Moyle on the street.” 1 Cowley’s memory of Moyle was a common 
one, and though brief it was remarkably encompassing, for the 
striking appearance of the man symbolized uncannily his involved 
and ascendant life. Barrel-chested and six feet tall, he walked 
erectly with long and forceful strides, his large, bearded jaw set 
immovably to the fore. The steps of his life were analogously the 
same; firmness, seriousness, and undeviability characterized his 
demeanor until just before his death in his eighty-eighth year, 
and yet he was a person of great love and devotion, of immeasur- 
able loyalties. In short, he was an impressive man, the proverbial 
great oak. 

It is not the purpose of this prologue to recount in detail the 
life of James H. Moyle; this volume ought to accomplish that task 
in itself. It suffices to say at this point that the man lived in Utah 

1 Transcript of funeral service, Alice Dinwoodey Moyle, 6 Apr. 1950, Box 7, fd 
4, James Henry Moyle Collection, Library-Archives, Historical Department, Church of 
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, hereinafter cited as CLA. All refer- 
ences hereinafter to box and folder (fd) are for items from this collection. 


Editor s Prologue 

as a devoted member of a growing but persecuted religious group, 
the Mormons. Born in the pioneer surroundings dictated by 
Mormon history and in the humblest of conditions, he witnessed 
and participated in the evolution of that people from an isolated 
and estranged community with segregative social institutions into 
an emergent culture anxious to travel the paths of modern Amer- 
ica. But Moyle had two religions by his own count, Mormonism 
and the Democratic party. 2 He believed in both with an equal 
fervor, and when they dashed, as they sometimes did in Utah 
history, he managed to endure, suffering only minor scars. Indeed, 
just before his death he held with coequal reverence the high 
regard Franklin D. Roosevelt and Mormon president Heber J. 
Grant had expressed for him prior to their deaths only months 
before. He was a Mormon Democrat, and perhaps the most 
complete owner of that title there had ever been. 

Growing up in the old Fifteenth Ward on the west side of Salt 
Lake City, Moyle had determined early that he would rise above 
the humble surroundings of his childhood; he would become a 
lawyer, even though the church looked askance at the legal profes- 
sion. Concomitant with this early determination, however, was a 
normal but eventful youth. His uniquely Mormon experiences 
ranged from seeing his father take a plural wife to working as a 
stonemason on the Salt Lake temple and standing guard over 
Brigham Young’s body as it lay in state in 1877. Then, having 
accepted completely the faith of his father, Moyle received a call 
to be a missionary in the Southern States where he served with 
distinction in North Carolina, most of the time as conference 
president. After returning home late in 1881, Moyle requested of 
President John Taylor approval of the church to go to the Univer- 
sity of Michigan to study law. With much reluctance and following 
a severe admonition to caution, Taylor blessed the young man in 
his pursuit of an education. 

At Michigan Moyle struggled with a heavy workload, meager 
Finances, and a weak educational background, but through it all 
he persevered and at the same time staunchly defended Mormon- 
ism, which was then under heavy attack because of the practice of 

2 Interview with James D. Moyle by Gene A. Sessions, 11 Aug. 1974, transcript 
of eighteen pages, CLA, p. 7. 


Editor's Prologue 

plural marriage. He graduated with an LL.B. in June 1885 and 
traveled home to begin his practice, but on the way he stopped in 
Richmond, Missouri, for a lengthy interview with David Whitmer, 
the last surviving member of the “three witnesses” to the golden 
plates of the Book of Mormon. His education completed and his 
faith entrenched, Moyle entered Utah politics. In 1886 he was 
elected Salt Lake County attorney and in 1888 to the territorial 
legislature on the Mormon People’s Party ticket. 

In 1891 at the disbandonment of the People’s Party, Moyle 
stated firmly his allegiance to the Democratic Party which brought 
him inevitably into conflict with church leadership as it tried to 
establish Republican parity among the traditionally Democratic 
Mormons. Moyle continued to clash with church leaders over 
politics, but managed to walk the tightrope, maintaining his devo- 
tion both to party and religion. He ran unsuccessfully for governor 
in 1900 and 1904 and finally for the Senate in 1914 on the 
Democratic and Progressive tickets against Apostle-Senator Reed 
Smoot. Following a narrow defeat in that election, Moyle set a 
precedent for a Latter-day Saint when he was tendered an appoint- 
ment as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Woodrow 
Wilson administration. 

After four innovative years in the Treasury, Moyle returned to 
Utah and settled into his role as de facto dean of Utah Democrats. 

Serving on the Democratic National Committee, he worked vigor- 
ously for the nomination of William G. McAdoo for the U.S. 
presidency in 1924. Disappointed in defeat and in the discrimina- 
tory tariff policies of the party, he nevertheless remained on the 
national committee until he voluntarily retired in 1932. 

In the fall of 1928, at the age of seventy, Moyle was appointed 
president of the Eastern States Mission of the church, which with 
his three decades as a member of the high council (or executive 
board) of the Ensign Stake he considered ample vindication of his 
persistent course of loyalty to the church despite his political 
disagreements with some of its leaders. 

While in New York presiding over the mission, Moyle met with 
Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt with whom he had served in the 
Wilson administration. In the spring of 1933, following his inaugu- 
ration as president, Roosevelt appointed Moyle Commissioner of 
Customs, and in 1939, at the age of eighty-one, he became special xv 

Editor s Prologue 

assistant to Treasury secretary Henry Morgenthau. Withal, he 
became an avid New Dealer and conducted strong campaigns in 
Roosevelt’s behalf in Utah. This brought him once again into 
conflict with some authorities of the church, but he remained an 
unbending advocate of Mormonism. He died in February 1946 
convinced to the end that his fidelity to both church and party 
would prove ultimately consistent. 

The scope of Moyle’s life and experience in Utah, Mormon, 
and national history suggests by itself the great value of his 
memoirs. But, additionally, he knew from close vantage nearly 
every major religious and political figure in Utah during six 
decades spanning two centuries, and further considered himself 
“intimate” with several national leaders of the Democratic Party. 
The consequent worth of his memories was fortunately apparent 
even to himself, and though he saw benefit in them mostly for his 
posterity, he was nevertheless painstaking in the preservation of 
his papers that now fill twenty-one boxes in the archives of the 
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Salt Lake City. They 
touch upon virtually every facet of the Kulturkampf in Utah from 
1885 to 1945. Moreover, his torn loyalties and sometimes over- 
developed sense of criticism caused him throughout his papers to 
paint meticulously the scenes of that great conflict as he engaged 
actively in it, often from both sides. 

Moyle’s role in this drama conformed naturally to his forceful 
characteristics, a fact that worked both for and against him. Even 
his physical appearance and bearing, so impressive to those who 
knew him, affected the pursuit of his goals negatively as well as 
positively. For while it signified strength and a sense of purpose 
to his friends, it indicated aloofness, conceit, and intimidation to 
many whose followership he might have otherwise earned. Con- 
comitantly, his firm and unbending dedication to principle 
sometimes took on colors of harshness, tactlessness, and self- 
righteousness when set in the framework of the Moyle personal- 
ity. With all of this seriousness and involvement in weighty affairs, 

3 Frank Jonas, “Utah: The Different State,” in Frank H. Jonas, ed., Politics in the 
American West (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1969), p. 331, believed that 
this factor meant the difference in Smoot’s defeat of Moyle in (he 1914 senatorial 


Editor's Prologue 

however, he was a real person who suffered as all humans do 
under the burdens of life and at the same time experienced the 
joys of family, friends, and achievement far above the average 
among his peers. Even though they may have disagreed with him 
in many if not most particulars, those who knew him well re- 
spected him. No one ever questioned his honesty or devotion to 
a consistent set of beliefs and life-standards, and despite the 
nearly constant clash between his extreme religiosity and his 
extreme partisanship, Moyle never wavered from his support of 
both church and party, founding his faith on the fundamentals 
of both and dismissing apparent inconsistencies among the poli- 
cies of the two as results of human frailty. 

There can be no claim that Moyle’s allegiance to the Mormon 
church and the Democratic Party was unique during the period of 
his life. Indeed, he was never numbered among the general 
authorities of the church as were other staunch Democrats such 
as B. H. Roberts and Anthony W. Ivins. In another sense, however, 
his independence from the ruling councils combined with his 
unswerving belief in Mormonism and his sense of judgment to 
make him an outspoken conscience of the church and as well of 
the party in Utah. It was impossible to challenge truthfully his 
integrity or his complete devotion to Mormon and Democratic 
principles, yet he freely criticized each institution and particularly 
the inconsistent actions of (lie leadership of each. One fellow 
Democrat called him the Savonarola of the Mormon church, but 
in the same sense he sought to reform the Democratic Party in 
Utah and the West especially with reference to regionally discrimi- 
natory tariff policies and machine politics. Beyond this, Moyle 
demonstrated an ability to act freely in making a choice between 
conflicting church and party positions without denigrating his 
ultimate faith in both causes. For example, he reluctantly aban- 
doned Prohibitionism when he saw that Roosevelt would leave it 

4 In 1928, for example, Moyle privately disapproved of the nomination of Al- 
fred Smith for president and, in general principles, agreed more with the candidacy 
of Herbert Hoover, but his loyalty to the Democratic Party dictated his open support 
for Smith. On the church side of the question, the Deseret News editorial attack in 
1936 on President Roosevelt shocked Moyle completely, yet it was after this point that 
he wrote some of his most stirring comments about the greatness of HeberJ. Grant 
and the final triumph of Mormonism as the apogee of true religion. 

Editor's Prologue 

behind as part of his new order in 1933. Hence, he built well the 
podium from which he addressed his sermons, and few escaped 
the sting of his didactics. 

In the final sense, however, it is significant and unfortunate 
that Moyle never learned the skills of compromise, that great art 
of politics. More than occasionally his direct attacks alienated 
those he wished to influence for the better. This was true not only 
in his three major elections, but also as he tried to express his views 
to close friends and even to members of his family. Despite all of 
this, Moyle had no enemies, because, notwithstanding judgment 
as to the rightness or wrongness of his positions, his opponents in 
life could not find fault with the way he lived or with his dedication 
to high principles. They could only criticize the manner in which 
he had fought, with the meat ax rather than the scalpel (as he 
characterized his actions). His friends could only lament that his 
causes so often died with his inability to carry them tactfully to 

That we can recognize so much of Moyle’s introspection and 
complexity, his weaknesses and strengths, is due in large part to 
his own determination to keep an honest and accurate record. 
During his entire mature life and especially after 1920, Moyle held 
a great interest in genealogy and family history. This he had 
inherited in some degree from his father whose records abound 
with these concerns. But regardless of the source of this interest 
in preserving for posterity the past, Moyle began to keep detailed 
“memoranda for history” during his mission presidency in the 
early 1930s. Initially, these were intended merely for the use of the 
members of his family so that they might know what he had done. 
But by 1937 he had come to realize that his experiences could be 
of broader value. He thus opened correspondence with surviving 
associates who knew elements of the stories in which he was 
interested. Combining with personal recollections an insatiable 
curiosity and a voracious reading habit, he developed a sense of 
his place in the past and in the history of Utah, the church, and 
Democratic politics. 

Shortly after his retirement in the summer of 1940, Moyle 
hired John Henry Evans, Mormon educator and popular biogra- 
pher of church figures, to write his biography. Using interviews, 
xviii letters, diaries, and the memoranda prepared to date, Evans began 

Editor s Prologue 

to write what he tentatively called “James Henry Moyle, His Life 
and Times.” By 1944 Evans had produced hundreds of pages, a 
prolix “long manuscript” which required reduction to more man- 
ageable size for publication— a “short manuscript.” In the mean- 
time Moyle was reading Evans’s chapters. His memory under- 
standably piqued, he wrote long comments and corrections both 
on the manuscript and in yellow legal pads that rapidly accumu- 
lated in his small study. Additionally, he began to suffer insomnia. 

Ordinarily, I go to bed about nine-thirty or ten, and after three to 
four hours (sometimes less), 1 awake and cannot go to sleep for from 
two to three hours more. During that time, and generally very soon 
after I awake, my mind clears away any subject that 1 have not fully 
explored and then reverts to some other subject that interests me. 

On these occasions he took his pencil and pad in hand and added 
further to his accumulation of written memorabilia. 

Sensing that he would soon leave them and having basked in 
the wealth of his experience all of their lives, his children also 
encouraged him to record his memories. By the summer of 1945 
his work on the “history” and his corollary study had long since 
developed into something of an obsession as he felt the relentless 
effects of age. 

My family, and especially my wife, complain of my being too 
quiet. It is a fact that when I am alone (if not too long) I am happy 
with my thoughts more than anything else, though I continue to read 
much, notwithstanding the great disadvantage in having to use not 
only my eyeglasses but also a hand magnifying glass. That has been 
the situation now for five years. I think better and clearer when I get 
into the accustomed place and time for doing that important work. 
I seem to have greater inspiration when there and at those hours, 
which is very different from when I was young and in middle life and 
even later. I found then that I could concentrate and do better work 
late at night when the body was physically worn down and the 
spiritual, intellectual self was the master. Now, as the day progresses, 
I wear down; my mind and body diminish in power and strength and 
I sometimes find myself unfit to do much. That has been lately most 
manifest when 1 have worried about what I would say in my writings 
at night. I have been humiliated with what I felt was a failure. That, 

5 Memorandum dated July 1945, Box 12, fd 3. 

Editor s Prologue 

however, is not yet always the case, but I deeply regret it is the rule 
rather than the exception. I wander as an old man will onto things 
not so directly applicable to my subject. That is the case now in this 
writing. I am so reminded that my time for being happy is when I am 
alone or quiet. It is on those occasions that 1 think the deepest and 
observe with the greatest profit. ’ 

By Christmas 1945John Henry Evans was mortally ill. The long 
manuscript was uncorrected and the shorter, publishable version 
incomplete. On that day Moyle himself entered the hospital for 
the final days of his life. Within two months he was dead, a victim 
of cancer and a refusal to undergo debilitating surgery. Evans 
lingered for some time, but was never again able to work on 
Moyle’s biography. 

Sometime later Henry L). Moyle, the eldest son who had since 
become an apostle in the church, gave the unfinished Evans 
manuscript to Gordon B. Hinckley and commissioned him to 
complete it. In 1951 Hinckley published James Henry Moyle: The 
Story of a Distinguished American and an Honored Churchman (Salt 
Lake City: Deseret Book Co.) which circulated mostly among 
family members and then went out of print. There the matter 
rested until I received a charge from then Church Historian 
Leonard J. Arrington to work through the Moyle Collection to 
determine its content and worth. 

As I read the Evans manuscripts, the diaries, and then the 
letters, I came to believe that there was a great need for more work 
on Moyle because of the broad scope of the collection as it related 
to paramount issues in Utah and EDS church history. Even so, 1 
approached the task of reading the six containers of yellow note- 
books with great reluctance. Cursory examination had indicated 
that the handwriting was often difficult and the subject matter, as 
Moyle readily admitted, greatly mixed. Furthermore, the pads 
were usually filled on both sides; stacked up, they measured more 
than two feet. After reading through only the first two notepads, 
however, I realized that in the course of preparing these totally 
unpolished memoranda, Moyle had written his own history in a 
remarkably lucid manner. What 1 had before me were the notes 


6 Memorandum dated Sept. 1945, Box 13, fd 1. 

Editor s Prologuk 

for a complete set of memoirs. Departed from the scene for nearly 
thirty years, he could yet tell his own story with all of his opinions 
and memories intact and devoid of the biographer’s inevitable 
distortions. I would have to organize, select, and edit, but the end 
product would be the memoirs of Moyle himself, presented for the 
reader to pursue and interrogate. 

To produce a readable book, I had to exercise some liberties 
with Moyle’s words since I was drafting from rough notes. But as 
the paragraphs of explanation on the following pages demon- 
strate, those liberties were restrained and few. In addition, each 
major event or thought in the edited memoirs is carefully refer- 
enced, citing the original memorandum from which it was drawn. 
In exceptional and rare cases, I used letters and other sources 
quoting Moyle to derive missing paragraphs, but these likewise are 
succinctly noted. 


T wo judgment criteria dictated 
the selection of paragraphs 
from Moyle’s memoranda for inclusion in the memoirs. The first, 
of course, was content, and the second was readability and lucidity. 

But inasmuch as Moyle was not trying to write a final production 
and was merely producing raw notes as he paced his mind with a 
pencil and pad of paper, some revision apart from the selection 
and organization process was necessary, as the following para- 
graph shown in original and edited versions demonstrates. 

Unedited Version 

1 . With that preface I will feel freer to say some things that does 
and had disturbed my mind, but thank God never soured it, 
and with His help nothing ever 

2. will. There is too much good in all good men to ever condemn 
them whole. It is that 

3. good which in the end counts and turns the ballance in their 

favor. It is also my xxiii 

Editorial Procedures and Acknowledgments 


4. my experience that the men who do things are more numerous 
than we generally 

5. realize. That with all their mistakes, in the final recounting, the 
good outweighs the bad so much that the bad will finally be 
out of sight and the good ever be in the light. 

6. I have been trying to write about what I think bad and the good 
has forced itself so strongly on my mind that I am left to won- 
der whether what I have in mind is worth 

7. the effort. It is the career ofj. Reuben Clark, Jr., in the Church 
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its influence on the af- 
fairs of the Church as I have witnessed that deeply interests 
me. I am made to realize that we are each opposed partisans 
in politics 

8. that make me at least unfitted for an impartial relations maybe 
of even 

9. the facts. 

Edited Version 

1. With that preface I will feel freer to say some things that have 
perennially disturbed my mind, but thank God never soured 
it, and with His help nothing ever 

2. will. There is too much good in all good men ever to condemn 
them wholly. It is that 

3. good which in the end counts and turns the balance in their 
favor. It is also my 

4. experience that men who do good things are more numerous 
than we generally 

5. realize. With all their mistakes, in the final recounting, the 
good outweighs the bad so much that the bad will finally be 
out of sight and the good ever be in the light. 

6. Whenever I have tried to write about what I think is bad, the 
good has forced itself so strongly on my mind that I am left to 
wonder whether what I have in mind is worth 

7. the effort. For example, because of my deep interest in the 
career ofj. Reuben Clark, Jr., in the Church of Jesus Christ of 
Latter-day Saints and its influence on the affairs of the 
Church, I am made to realize that we are each opposed parti- 
sans in politics 

8. and that may make me at least unfitted for an impartial relation 
even of 

9. the facts. But I must try. 

As the above sample illustrates, I have worked carefully with 

Editorial Procedures and Acknowledgments 

the original manuscripts to preserve Moyle’s words with a mini- 
mum of tampering, but it was necessary, for example, to change 
wording for the sake of clarity and flow (see line 1). I have also 
corrected grammar (2) and spelling (3). The insertion of a word 
or the rewording of a phrase (4) generally satisfied occasions when 
Moyle’s sentences failed to convey the meaning that the context 
of the original paragraph indicated. Extraneous words detrimental 
to the flow of the paragraph were removed (5), and words were 
often added to provide smooth transition between phrases, sen- 
tences, and paragraphs (9). Sentences were rearranged and/ or 
subordinated to other sentences (6 and 7) to increase lucidity and 
to smooth style. In other cases I used the editor’s pen simply to 
rework the text where I believed literary quality should be im- 
proved (8). But in all, I have zealously worked to avoid putting 
words into Moyle’s mouth or altering in any way his thoughts or 
his intent and meaning. I believe in conclusion that I have success- 
fully carried the memoirs of James Henry Moyle to much the same 
final form to which he would have brought them himself. 

Though more than willing to take full responsibility for the 
editorial work which has gone into this volume, I must offer special 
thanks to some of the many who suffered with me through the 
process while rendering valuable aid. The James Moyle Genealogi- 
cal and Historical Association through its officers provided the 
necessary impetus and funds to gather Moyle’s papers for deposit 
in the church archives and to encourage a scholarly investigation 
of their content. James D. Moyle and Evelyn M. Nelson were 
tireless in this connection and in their efforts to see that accuracy 
and thoroughness characterized the project. Church Historian 
Leonard J. Arrington and his assistants, Davis Bitton and James B. 

Allen, read the manuscript and were constantly available with 
suggestions and answers drawn freely from their insightful knowl- 
edge of Utah history. Brent Thompson, who organized the Moyle 
Collection for the church archives, went out of his way to assist me 
during my study of the collection. John Sillito’s help in preparing 
the notes was additionally invaluable as was the diligence of 
Church Historical Department editors Maureen Ursenbach and 
Jill Mulvay. Most recently, Jim Kimball of the Church Historical 
Library provided kind assistance. Deserving of a special mention 
is Pauline Huber whose patience and perseverance during the xxv 

Editorial Procedures and Acknowledgments 

process of transcribing and revising the yellow notebooks made 
this volume technically possible. 

A final word of gratitude must go to James Henry Moyle 
himself. His long and eventful existence, his redoubtable faith and 
sense of purpose, and his strong character, whether or not one 
agrees with his convictions and actions, could only serve to inspire. 
For he believed fervently in honorable accomplishment, not only 
for its sake only, but for the joy it can bring to life. And he lived 
well to that end. 

Chapter 1 


My object in writing a history is not to sell it, but for the benefit 
of my children and my posterity, so they may know what I have 
done, what I have been through, what I have worked for, and what 
I desire for my family. This history is written solely to throw light 
upon the period in which I lived and the part I took therein, with 
no thought as to when it would be published, what it would cost, 
or what returns would be received therefrom. Certainly there is 
no thought of making money thereby. My only selfish thought is 
to dignify the Moyle family of which I am only a part, and the 
posterity I may leave to honor that name. May God grant that the 
name may forever exist among my descendants in perpetual honor 
and usefulness. 1 

To help me in the preparation of this history, I have employed 
John Henry Evans, who has now (March 1943) given me more than 
eighteen months of half of his working time, the balance being 
devoted to the Sunday School Union. 2 I cannot say that I am totally 

1 Memorandum dated Mar. 1943, Box 9, fd 7; James Henry Moyle Collection, 
Library-Archives, Historical Department, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 
Salt Lake City, hereinafter cited as CLA. All references hereinafter to box and folder 
(fd) are for items from this collection. 

2 Ibid. Evans worked on the Moyle biography until shortly before his death in 
1947. He produced two incomplete manuscripts, a “long" and a “short” version. 
These the family turned over to Gordon B. Hinckley who subsequently published 
James Henry Moyle: The Story of a Distinguished American and an Honored Churchman 
(Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1951). See the Evans manuscripts, Boxes 17-20. 

Chapter I 

satisfied with the work John Henry is doing; he writes much about 
very little and very little about much, little that is comprehensive 
and much about what is not comprehensive. 1 1 am especially afraid 
that John Henry will not tell everything. Every note I have sent to 
him has been “give the facts,” because I feel that my life story, told 
truthfully, will be very faith-promoting for any young man in the 
Church. ' 

Conversation with President Grant 

It may be easiest to explain my apprehension over John 
Henry’s work with the following incident. On March 11, 1943, 
President Heber J. Grant invited us to ride with him and Sister 
Grant, as they have done on a number of occasions. This was an 
exception, however, because no one else was invited. Heretofore, 
there were always three or four others invited, generally widows, 
at least when we were present. The last two or three times, 
President Grant sat on the front seat with Mrs. Grant. This time 
he sat behind with me alone; Mrs. Moyle, when I accepted the 
invitation, declined because of another appointment. That was an 
excuse, however, because the appointment was with our daughter 
Sara. My wife did not enjoy the President sitting in front and not 
turning around when he talked, which he did very freely, often 
repeating what she had heard before. And it was difficult to catch 
all he said. ’ 

I think he changed seats when Alice declined and had no other 
company in order to talk freely to me, because my cousin Wilford 
Wood had asked John Henry Evans to disclose to him for President 
Grant what I was saying in my history about the Church and the 
Brethren. 1 told President Grant that Wood had made the request, 
and that I had said that I would talk to him (the President) about 

3 Memorandum daled May 1943, Box 10, fd 1. 

4 Interview with Evelyn Moyle Nelson by Gene A. Sessions, 20 June 1974, tran- 
script of twelve pages, CLA, p. 2. 1 included this statement because it accorded with 
many other more lengthy comments on the same subject among the Moyle memo- 

5 Memorandum daled Mar. 1943, Box 9, fd 7. “In his last years, President 
Grant almost daily, when the weather permitted, took a long automobile ride in the 
country or in near-by picturesque canyons. On these rides he and Mrs, Grant were al- 
ways accompanied by relatives or friends.” Preston Nibley, The Presidents of the Church 
(Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1971), p. 258. 

My History 

it. This I had also said to Bishop John L. Herrick and suggested 
that he give the same to the President, which Brother Grant said 
he had done. 

I repeated the Wood matter and my willingness to talk about 
it. I did not tell him that I was indignant at Wood because he had 
gone to Evans surreptitiously and not to me. The President merely 
and somewhat evasively admitted that Wood had acted in his 
behalf. I do not remember his exact words, but he said no more 
about it then. 

We rode to the mouth of Parley’s Canyon, a favorite trip, 
then on Wasatch Drive to Thirty-third South, then west and 
home. I was going to Sara’s for dinner so I said I would leave 
them at Third Avenue and A Street, and that I wanted to walk 
farther and see the beautiful view from there. About two blocks 
south of President Grant’s home, I said I would get out, but he 
suggested that we stop at his house. So we did, and to my surprise, 
when I went to get out, he did not, but said to Cannon Lund 
(who was driving) that he could go and that he would have his 
son-in-law take care of the car, which was parked at the side of 
his home on A Street. It was evident that he wanted to talk with 
me in strict privacy. 

We remained a good part of a half hour, maybe more. Several 
calls were made from his house to aid him in, but he refused. 

As soon as we were alone, he said that he was anxious that I 
not say anything in my history reflecting against President Joseph 
F. Smith. He extolled Brother Smith, saying how true he was, and 
that he was possibly the greatest President of the Church. Presump- 
tively, Joseph Smith was in a class by himself, but he said nothing 
indicating that. He said (though I do not remember his exact 
language) that Joseph F. never deviated from the right. I asserted 
that I knew of one deviation which he regretted. I had in mind 
Joseph F.’s connection with my being removed as attorney from 
the Consolidated Wagon and Machine Company and his son-in- 
law, John F. Bowman, taking my place. 

In the conversation I referred to the injustice and ingratitude 
of the leadership of the Church for turning against the Demo- 
cratic Party and fighting it through the leadership of Apostles 
Francis M. Lyman and John Henry Smith, and to the strong 
partisanship of President Smith. I was careful, however, not to 3 

Chapter 1 

refer to myself or to speak in a way to disturb the nerves of the 
President. He had said to me that he was very weak and I thought 
he looked it, more so than when we had ridden together several 
months before. I called attention to the fact that the Republican 
Party, from its first platform in 1856, bad declared against the 
twin relics of barbarism “slavery and polygamy,” and that its 
carpetbag officers came to Utah to reform and not to govern the 
Mormons. 6 7 

I knew he had of old agreed with me on the injustice of turning 
against the Democratic Party, but he made no comment on that 
subject; silence acknowledged consent, for if I had uttered an 
injustice, he would have quickly expressed himself. I somehow 
managed to keep it all in such fraternal, friendly conversation that 
the President took it all in a good spirit. He then admitted that 
Joseph F. was strongly partisan, but that men of strong convictions 
generally were. To illustrate President Smith’s fairness, he said that 
the Federal Bunch had tried to put Charles W. Penrose out of 
business as editor of the Deseret News, and had in effect lied about 
him to President Smith, but that he, knowing or later learning the 
truth, denounced them severely and made Penrose his counselor 
in the First Presidency. I said that President Smith had nevertheless 
stood with them. He seemed anxious to put over the fact that 
though strongly partisan, President Smith was always true to the 
right and the great.' 

6 Memorandum dated Mar. 1943, Box 9, fd 7. Moyle had a difficult time under- 
standing how the church could favor the Republicans after all of this. Consequently, 
he dwelt upon this idea in his notes (that the Republicans had always been against the 
Mormons), often repeating this “twin relics” phrase as a symbol of that enmity. See Ev- 
erett L. Cooley, “Carpetbag Rule— Territorial Government in Utah,” Utah Historical 
Quarterly 26 (Apr. 1958): 106-29; Richard D. Poll, “The Twin Relic,” M.A. thesis, Texas 
Christian University, 1939. 

7 Memorandum dated Mar. 1943, Box 9, fd 7. The influential leaders of the 
Utah Republican Party in the early 1900s were nicknamed the “Federal Bunch” by the 
Salt Lake Tribune, because they were generally federal appointees of Senator Reed 
Smoot. Among heads of the group were Edward H. Callister and James H. Anderson. 
See William L. Roper and Leonard J. Arrington, William Spry: Man of Firmness, Gover- 
nor of Utah (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1971), pp. 5, 68; Jan Shipps, 

“Utah Comes of Age Politically: A Study of the State’s Politics in the Early Years of 
the Twentieth Century,” Utah Historical Quarterly 35 (Spring 1967): 99; Frank H. 

Jonas, “Utah: Crossroads of the West,” in Frank H. Jonas, ed., Western Politics (Salt 
Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1961), pp. 274-76. Moyle considered his effective 

My History 

What I wanted to present to him was the policy of the Deseret 
News toward me when I went to Washington as Assistant Secretary 
of the Treasury in 1917. I called his attention to his advice to me 
to accept the call because of the importance of it and my oppor- 
tunity to be of service to our people, and the business sacrifice it 
involved. I also referred to what B. H. Roberts had said in the 
banquet given me by the leading men of the state, saying it marked 
a new era in the history of the state, and to the praise given me by 
the Salt Lake Tribune and Salt Lake Telegram (then not connected). 
I repeated the importance all seemed to attach to the matter, 
except the Deseret News, which had nothing to say about it, except 
that the banquet was notable because of the fact that there was no 
liquor or tobacco in evidence. To all of this, President Grant 
offered no comment. So I said to the President that while I was 
much interested in the foregoing 1 did not want to trouble him 
with an answer. I said this to indicate to him what I would like 
without specifically asking for it, because last year 1 requested an 
interview relative to our history and was asked to put my question 
in writing. 8 

I had heard that of late he had greatly failed mentally. I had 
not talked to him for several months, though 1 wanted to, about 
these and other matters, and I was greatly surprised to observe no 
evidence of mental degeneration. His mind seemed clear and he 
understood more readily than I had anticipated. At last, Mrs. Judd 
[Grant’s daughter] came out and insisted that it was time for him 
to come in, and so he did, but not before he had gotten something 
of what he wanted. Also, by that time we were enjoying ourselves, 
laughing freely over old times.’ 1 

A Remarkable Span of Experience 

It is this kind of experience that I am afraid John Henry Evans 
cannot deal with freely, because of his Church connections. I want 
an honest history, a history that will be a contribution to the time 

opposition to the Federal Bunch to be one of the great accomplishments of his politi- 
cal career. 

8 Memorandum dated Mar. 1943, Box 9, fd 7. See Salt Lake Tribune, 29 Sept. 
1917, 30 Sept. 1917; Deseret News, 30 Sept. 1917; Salt Lake Telegram, 30 Sept. 1917. 

9 Memorandum dated Mar. 1943, Box 9, fd 7. The president was eighty-six 
years old at this time. 


Chapter 1 

in which I have lived. 10 For example, it seems to me that I have had 
a remarkable experience in national politics. My Democratic Na- 
tional Conventions spanned Five decades. I attended in Chicago 
in 1884 when Cleveland was first nominated, also in St. Louis in 
1888 (Cleveland again). I was in Kansas City in 1900 for Bryan’s 
second nomination and in Denver for Bryan’s third in 1908. 1 was 
in Europe when Wilson was nominated in 1912, but I attended 
banquets at Baltimore and Washington the winter before the 
convention of 1916. 1 saw Cox nominated in San Francisco in 1920. 
I worked for the nomination of McAdoo in New York in 1924, but 
Davis won it, and again in Houston in 1928 when Smith was 
nominated. Finally, I witnessed the nomination of the great Frank- 
lin D. Roosevelt in the Chicago convention of 1 932. 

I have seen all of the Presidents of the United States since 
Lincoln except Johnson, Garfield, and Arthur. I have met all of 
them from Cleveland to FDR except McKinley. I dined at the 
White House with Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt. I 
have served officially under three— Wilson, Harding, and 
Roosevelt. I visited the homes of Hayes and FDR, and considered 
myself intimate with Bryan. I also visited Cox in Ohio in my 
capacity of national committeeman. 11 

My public career commenced with my mission to the South- 
ern States in July of 1879. It covers the period of agitation and 
trial of the Latter-day Saints which followed that of the pioneer 
struggle for existence. There followed afterwards a period of 
peace and adjustment for the Saints as they moved into a new 
era of social, political, financial, and religious amity with their 
Gentile neighbors. This secured for them “prosperity, wealth, and 
popularity,” and political supremacy in Utah with great influence 
in adjoining and neighboring states. And finally, it changed the 
Mormon people from a most despised group to the most re- 
spected in the nation. I believe, for example, that there is a 
greater employment in Washington (per capita) of Mormons than 
of any other religion. 

When I voluntarily left official life in Washington in July of 
1940, there were three active, virile, and enthusiastic branches of 

10 Memorandum dated Feb. 1944, Box 10, fd 4. 

11 Memorandum dated 1942, Box 9, fd 5. 

My History 

the Church there, fully organized with all the auxiliary organiza- 
tions. In addition, there was a small branch in the government-con- 
structed model village of Greenbelt in nearby Maryland with 
branches at Baltimore and elsewhere . 12 

That period of my active life of about sixty-five years will stand 
in significance next only to that of the epoch-making period of 
pioneer days, and no other period of equal importance in the 
history of Utah and Mormonism will follow it unless it be one of 
degeneration. It was a period of prolonged persecution and social 
war, followed by a short period of adjustment in which revolution- 
ary changes took place in the social and religious fundamentals of 
Mormon society. It was the end of a period of social and religious 
isolation marked by the breaking down of impassable social, 
religious, and business barriers that all but completely separated 
Mormon and non-Mormon neighbors, however intimate their 
daily contact. It was a transformation developed with almost 
lightning speed; when the key was turned, the door was opened 
and those barriers suddenly disappeared. The most hated political 
opponents suddenly became ardent allies. The Salt Lake Tribune, 
which had exhausted the invectives of the English language against 
the leaders of the Church for nearly half a century, suddenly 
became the political organ of a very large majority of the leaders 
of the Mormon Church. Their longtime friend and defender, the 
Salt Lake Herald, was no longer in their favor. 1 ' 

I foresaw that bewildering period as a schoolboy of twenty-five. 
I foretold of the transformation of the Church and clearly por- 
trayed not only the conditions that exist today but also prophesied 
that the exact opposite condition would exist from that which then 
existed. I believed then that the greatest enemy of the Saints would 
be not religious persecution and intolerant hatred but their own 
prosperity, wealth, and popularity. That prophecy was published 

12 Memorandum dated Sept.-Oct. 1942, Box 9, fd 6. See Jo Ann Barnett Shipps, 
“The Mormons in Politics: The First Hundred Years,” Ph.D. diss., University of Colo- 
rado, 1965. 

18 Memorandum dated Sept.-Oct. 1942, Box 9, fd 6. See J. Cecil Alter, Early 
Utah Journalism: A Half-Century of Forensic Warfare Waged by the West ’s Most Militant 
Press (Salt Lake City: Utah State Historical Society, 1938); O. N. Malmquist, The First 
100 Years: A History of the Salt Lake Tribune, 1871-1971 (Salt Lake City: Utah State His- 
torical Society, 1971). 

Chapter 1 

in the Juvenile Instructor, on October 1, 1883. It was the result of 
an intensive study of history, and particularly that of the English 
people. It developed because of an intense interest in my religion 
and people. That article produced no disturbance on the troubled 
water of the day because it came from an obscure school boy, and 
was so apparently impossible that only fifty years, as I predicted, 
would work the transformation. Nevertheless, my thinking has 
been vindicated. 14 

We now boast of the popularity and prosperity achieved under 
President Grant’s administration, and we all greatly enjoy it. I have 
said publicly and repeatedly that when I was in the East fifty and 
more years ago (and even later) I found not a few of our people 
evading the fact that they were “Mormons” for prudential reasons. 
(Thank God I never did.) But in my recent seven years in high 
official circles in Washington 1 found that beyond question, with 
many high and lower officials and outside of political official life, 
it was an advantage rather than disadvantage to be known as a 
Mormon, because of the growing belief that our people were more 
than usually temperate and moral in their habits, and frugal and 
industrious in their lives— in other words, dependable. I intro- 
duced many applicants for employment saying only that they were 
good, clean-living Mormon boys or girls. 

Trends in Mormonism and Mormon Society 

I have always had an abiding, uninterrupted faith in the growth 
and development of the Church. I have, as heretofore, believed 
with an immovable and abiding faith in the growth, development, 
and onward progress of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day 
Saints and that no deviation therefrom (if there be any) will be 
permanent. I am deeply grateful to the Lord for this faith and 
testimony, for there have been some great changes in the Church 
in my lifetime. 

I might here offer some examples as to spiritual trends in the 
lives of real Latter-day Saints. Up to about the time I went on my 
last mission twelve years ago (1929), it was not the custom to write 

14 Memorandum dated Sept.-Oct. 1942, Box 9, fd 6. See James H. Moyle, “Will 
We Progress?” Juvenile Instructor, 1 Oct. 1883, pp. 292-93. 

15 Memorandum dated Sept.-Oct. 1942, Box 9, fd 6. See below, chap. 3. 

My History 

or read addresses in the assemblies of the Saints. So far as I 
remember and could observe, the theory or philosophy was that 
speakers should rely upon the inspiration of the Lord, but should 
nevertheless keep their minds as richly stored with information as 
possible. Fifty years ago to read an ordinary address on an ordinary 
occasion without some special reason would have shocked the 
spiritual sensibilities of the Latter-day Saints. As a mission presi- 
dent, I spoke for a few minutes at each general conference. Every 
active member of the Church was a minuteman presumed to be 
ready to do his best whenever called with only a real reliance on 
the Spirit of the Lord to help him. Some may have kept an address 
on hand, but I was not prudent enough to have a talk prepared for 
the occasion when I might be called. If I did so I realized that it 
might be ten years before I would be so called and that the address 
would be out of date. I was too lazy to keep an up-to-date address 
on ice. Yet I was no more lazy than the ordinary member. The fact 
was that it was inconsistent with the general conception of spiritual 
activity and duty. It meant reliance on self and not the Lord. 

Again fifty years ago, and for a long time afterwards, it was a 
rare and serious occasion when a doctor was called to serve the 
sick, unless a surgeon was needed to amputate or t ry to save a limb, 
or an injured member of the body. Such was the practice in my 
father’s family and with practically all of our neighbors. The first 
thought in my mind, and in that of my devoted mother and our 
neighbors, was to follow the advice of James: “If there are any sick 
among you, call the elders and let them anoint with oil, and the 
prayer of faith shall heal the sick.” 

When our neighborhood learned that the President of the 
Church and the chief officers of the Church had regularly attended 
physicians whose services were actively called into use even when 
the sickness was not serious, it was something of a shock. In Salt 
Lake City the custom spread, especially as wealth increased, until 
now it is the rule rather than the exception. The money notwith- 
standing, it was a fact that remarkable cures were frequently if not 
commonly effected by the administrations of the elders and the 
faith of the patient and his family, and with the aid of an unedu- 
cated, pioneer mother’s remedies. In my very early life we neither 

16 Memorandum dated 1941, Box 9, fd 4. See James 5:14. 


Chapter 1 

knew of nor had heard of dangerous disease germs, and social 
diseases were intolerable and confined to the criminals and their 
unfortunate associations. 

As a child, if I were sick and felt seriously ill, my first anxiety 
and request was that the elders of the Priesthood should be called 
to administer to me. My faith was implicit that I would be healed, 
and I was. Mother was a real pioneer, and she gave me tea, castor 
oil, herbs, and other home remedies and applied herbal applica- 
tions for bruises, strains, and other injuries. If the trouble was 
obstinate, Daddy Bussel from across the street, an old English 
herbalist, was called. I never had a doctor until about sixteen or 
seventeen when it became necessary to amputate my left forefin- 
ger. Mother had thirteen children, which in those days was a 
common but crowning achievement among good Mormon 
women, but now shocking to many. I was the oldest. No doctor 
ever aided Mother at childbirth and such was the case with most 
neighbors unless something very serious developed. Mother never 
had any aid except from Sister Duncanson, an old Scotch neighbor 
who brought into the world all the babies of the neighborhood. 
There might have been an exception I do not recall, but it would 
be only another less popular midwife. I do not think Mother 
remained inactive ever for more than two weeks. She invariably 
felt ready to resume her active duties in about a week. The midwife 
had difficulty in keeping her in bed over a week if that long. She 
was unusually strong and healthy. I am sure her life would have 
been prolonged if she had not been so strenuous and prolific. 

Again, down to the time that I commenced to practice law 
in 1885, there were rare cases of court litigation. In harmony 
with the scriptures, it was an actual violation of religious duty to 
sue a brother in the courts of the land, except in cases involving 
titles to land and corporations, of which there were very few 
then. The Church held that corporation officers must follow the 
law, and that only the courts could handle land titles effectively. 
The Church maintained in my opinion the finest, least expensive, 
most expeditious system of adjudicating controversies ever estab- 
lished. It, however, was only fit for a community of Church 
members who respected and upheld the decisions of such courts. 
It worked effectively until non-members of the Church became 
10 numerous and complications arose over financial transactions in 

My History 

which non-members were involved. The systems worked fairly 
well down to the real estate boom of 1888 and 1889, and the 
severe panic of 1893. The boom brought many Gentiles into Salt 
Lake City and Ogden. Corporations were rapidly increasing and 
the panic frequently required quick action by attachment and 
otherwise to secure payment of indebtedness. If members did 
not attach and get legal judgments and liens on debtors’ property 
and income, then non-members only would be paid. For a good 
illustration, my bishop, an exceptionally splendid man, was in the 
mercantile business in Salt Lake City. All ward bishops presided 
over a bishop’s court. But he came to me and said, “I have never 
sued a brother. And it greatly disturbs me to do so, but I must 
or go into bankruptcy and let the property of my debtors be 
taken by the strangers who have recently come among us.” The 
conclusion was inevitable, and suits at law rapidly became com- 
mon. Soon, the work of the Church courts diminished greatly, 
until the Mormon community differed little in law procedures 
from other communities. 17 

Reflecting a Greater Moyle Family 

I want also my history to reflect in the highest degree its 
primary object— a greater Moyle family than I found it. The great 
moving cause of my life was an abiding interest in my family. I want 
my experiences related so that they will be interesting and at the 
same time show my concern for the advancement of my family and 
my people. I always firmly believed in the greatness of my heritage, 
and remained loyal to it. Recognizing in my grandfather and father 
embryonic virtues and merits, indeed the basic elements of great- 
ness, I was determined that those elements would emerge appar- 
ent in me. 18 

Notwithstanding my backwardness as a young boy due to really 
dreadful bashfulness and an apparent lack of confidence in myself, 
I had from my early teens an intense desire for my father to be 

17 Memorandum dated 1941, Box 9, fd 4. See David Michael Emmons, “The 
Boomers’ Frontier: Land Promotion and the Settlement of the Central Plains, 1854- 
1893,” Ph.D. diss., University of Colorado, 1969; Leonard J. Arrington, Great Basin 
Kingdom: An Economic History of the Latter-day Saints, 1830-1900 (Cambridge, MA: Har- 
vard University Press, 1958), pp. 380-412. 

18 Undated memorandum, Box 9, fd 1. 

Chaptkr 1 

recognized in community activities as a leader. I felt that he was 
superior to his neighbors intellectually and as a man, though he 
was not educated and had not distinguished himself intellectually. 
But few had. It was then a real struggle to obtain the needs of the 
family. Father did as well as any mechanic did, and I do not 
remember when he did not take important contracts. I distinctly 
remember his building the Walker Brothers’ Store in 1869 when 
I was eleven. About that time he built the Woodmansee store on 
the other side of Main Street with a cut stone front that stood until 
only recently. It was just below the southeast corner of Main and 
First South. Then later he put up the Amussen Building which was 
a very solid stone structure which will last as long as a two-story 
building is practical. The Walker Building on the northwest corner 
of Main and Second South is also still standing. All three were 
considered to be outstanding structures in those days. But Father 
was not made bishop or counselor which were the outstanding 
honors then for ordinary men, or likewise city councillor. The 
bishop then commonly served for life, and became the top man in 
almost eveiy thing of local importance. 19 

Father had the intellect, firmness, courage, and character to 
have placed himself higher than he rose but for one commendable 
weakness: modesty. He had been born and reared in humble 
circumstances, with no one around him who elevated himself 
beyond master mechanic, which he and his father were, or like his 
grandfather Beer, who was an employer of small proportions of 
mason mechanics as a building contractor. He did have govern- 
ment contracts which indicates that he was not a small contractor. 
It is true that Father’s grandfather, James Moyle, could write in a 
very good hand, so he probably did much writing. But another 
significant reason for Father’s failure to go higher was the prema- 
ture ending of his life at age fifty-six. ’" 

He was made a high councilor in the Salt Lake Stake in 1887 

19 Memorandum dated Sept. 1945, Box 13, fd 1. The term “mechanic” in 
Moyle’s vocabulary pertained to its older meaning of “skilled manual laborer” as op- 
posed to the more modern application which refers to “one who works with ma- 

20 Memorandum dated Feb. 1944, Box 10, fd 4. See Gene A. Sessions, ed., “Bi- 
ographies and Reminiscences from the James Henry Moyle Collection,” unpublished 
manuscript, 1974, CLA, secs. 4, 16. 

My History 

when it constituted the city and county of Salt Lake and about 
one-third of the territory of Utah, but it was even more than that 
in importance. Since I was elected county attorney in 1886, I took 
some interest in the fact that my prominence might have added to 
his dignity and stature, for he had greatly contributed to promot- 
ing, as a father and benefactor, the ambition that made me the 
first young Mormon to go east to study law with the formality of 
a blessing to do so by the President of the Church. It is also a fact 
that I was the only college-bred Mormon in the county who was 
fitted for the place in 1886. LeGrand Young would not accept the 
job. I was therefore holding down the place creditably in 1887 
when Father’s appointment was made. And remember, that was a 
far greater distinction than now. I take real pride believing that he 
thought his distinction in that respect was at least partially due to 
having a son who had become outstanding. But I know he merited 
the place on his own account and probably would have been 
selected in any event. Jl 

My Youthful Ambitions 

Next, the ambition developed for the family to be honored, the 
name of Moyle recognized, and for me to become something. For 
though I felt handicapped by my bashfulness, I always felt that it 
was in me to get somewhere worthwhile ultimately, way beyond 
that humble sphere in which all lived with whom I was intimately 

It was probably when I was a boy of about fifteen that I read 
Pollard’s Lost Cause, an account of the Civil War with a brief biogra- 
phy of Abraham Lincoln. The possibilities that Lincoln demon- 
strated were all I needed. The one sphere not occupied by the sons 
of the most potent Mormons was that of lawyer. Our people did 
not go to law with each other, in the courts of the land. Their rela- 
tions were almost exclusively with each other. (I think I was more 
than ten years old when the first non-Mormon lived in the Fif- 
teenth Ward, which was a large ward, located from Second West to 
the western limits of the city, and bounded on the north by South 
Temple Street.) Lawyer and liar were synonymous terms. For a few 
dollars a lawyer would espouse either side of a cause. Little was 

21 Memorandum dated Feb. 1944, Box 10, fd 4. See below, chap. 4. 

Chapter I 

known about the fine ethics of attorneys-at-law. Many of them were 
not educated for the law and knew or cared but little about the eth- 
ics of the profession. They were rather the scrubs of the profession. 
A real lawyer was the height of honor and responsibility, and stood 
high among the best of citizens who knew him. 22 

As my ambitions developed, I found the choice places in life, 
like that of an appointment to Annapolis or West Point, were filled 
by sons of the most prominent men. For example, Willard Young 
was at West Point, his brother at Annapolis (sons of Brigham 
Young) and Richard W., a grandson of Brigham Young, was there 
or on the way to it. I had nothing but a humble background, and 
was not exceptionally bright. I had not made in my classes in school 
even a good showing due to my diffidence. Harry Haines was the 
first teacher to observe any merits I had. And he took a real interest 
in me, even inviting me to visit him in his room. 

Haines had no family and lived in a single room, and there he 
aided me to make my first address. It was some unusual school af- 
fair or exhibition of what we were doing. All I remember about the 
address was referring to my insufficiency and saying (due entirely 
to Harry Haines), “I am not a Demosthenes or Cicero. ...” I might 
have forgotten about that speech but for the fact that George M. 
Cannon, a friendly schoolmate, as long as he lived continually re- 
minded me of the “I-am-not-a-Demosthenes-or-Cicero” speech. In 
fact he remembered more of it than I did or do now. 1 think 
George, one of the brightest of our students and a fine young man, 
was a little jealous of the attention given me by the teacher. He 
made by far a better showing in school than I did. And there was 
nothing against him. He was a nice person. 23 

As I seriously contemplated doing what my ambition was im- 
pelling me to do, I concluded that due to my backwardness and 
lack of ability, I must go east to a good law school and there make a 

22 Memorandum dated Sept. 1945, Box 13, fd 1. The Lost Cause, by Edward Al- 
bert Pollard (1828-72), was a romantic history of the Confederate effort in the Civil 
War. Pollard was a Virginia lawyer who staunchly supported the South but bitterly op- 
posed the policies of Jefferson Davis. He wrote several other books on the war and 
the South, all full of the folklore and idealism of mid-nineteenth-century literature. 

23 Memorandum dated Sept. 1945, Box 13, fd 1. Demosthenes and Cicero are 
the Greek and Roman epitomes of great orators, such as Daniel Webster in the Ameri- 
can forensic pantheon. 


good record which would give me the needed standing and start in 
life. 1 did not lack confidence in myself that I would make good 
with such a start. I was more than willing to work to the limit, and 
believed further that it was an absolute necessity. I have never 
changed my mind as to that subject. It cannot be too often re- 
peated that work is the greatest of all genius, although I must admit 
that I did not know that then. 

When very young and diffident and for some considerable 
time, I was ashamed or too modest to let even my father or mother 
or most intimate companion know what was my unalterable pur- 
pose to do. When I did tell anyone, it was with the most solemn 
promise that he or she would tell no one. I believed I would be sub- 
jected to ridicule not only because of the prejudice of everyone I 
knew against a young Mormon going east to study law but because 
I believed I would be regarded by all as ridiculous and vain for 
thinking of such a thing. I have written elsewhere of the opposition 
to my going east of neighbors, bishop, stake president, and even of 
the President of the Church in 1882. Now (in 1945) this seems in- 
conceivable, and has for a long time. I am proud now of my pio- 
neering in that problem. And it was real pioneering then for an ac- 
tive Latter-day Saint. Though there were rare cases of young Mor- 
mons going east to study law, they were not active Church workers 
as I was and did not meet the issue and solve it as I did. I know of 
three only who preceded me. One left the Church while away from 
it, one left the territory and cast his lot in the Northwest among 
strangers and had nothing further to do with the Church, and the 
other became a partner of one of the most bitter of all anti-Mor- 
mons, and was not active in the Church, though he retained his 
membership and became more active in later life when completely 
separated from his old partner. I do not suggest that the partner 
dominated him, because he was very high-minded and honorable, 
but how he tolerated the association can only be accounted for in 
that the firm acted occasionally as attorneys for Brigham Young 
and the Church. The great irony is that the three I refer to here 
were the sons of very prominent Church leaders— Presidents 
Brigham Young and John Taylor, and President Joseph Young of 
the Seventies.' 1 

24 Memorandum dated Sept. 1945, Box 13, fd 1. Reference is to Allales Young, 

Chapter 1 

My Father’s Limited Sphere 

I had, as previously stated, smarted as a little boy under the 
humiliation that Father had never been selected for bishop or 
bishop’s counselor or city councillor— places that seemed to be 
within the reach of our ward members. Anything higher than 
that was not contemplated in my tender, early days. All our near 
neighbors were humble men; we did not live in the realm of the 
higher ups. We were on the outskirts of the city with no neighbors 
on the immediate south, and only one street west of us which 
ended at Second South. Had he lived a normal lifespan, as he 
easily might have, and had he not been tied down with about all 
he could do in providing for his two families of six children in 
each with two mothers, he might have gone farther up, though 
I am unable to point in what direction. In the Eighteenth Ward 
into which he moved in 1887, there was much less opportunity 
for a culturally uneducated and uncultivated mind that had lived 
and moved in the atmosphere so nearly composed of working 
people for fifty-six years. 

It is true that his high council surroundings were very differ- 
ent. The chief work of the high council of those days, next in impor- 
tance to the selection of stake and ward officers and instructions to 
them, was the trial of controversies between members of the 
Church. While the teachers’ and bishops’ trials disposed of many 
cases, it was in the high council where the important cases went 
either by original action or appeal from the bishop’s court. An ap- 
peal from the high council decision could go to the First Presi- 
dency on the record made in the high council, but that, like appeals 
to the Supreme Court, was very rare. Hence, Father was often out 
at those trials all night in order to save another night at it, and he 
would come home as late as two or three in the morning. 2 ” 

The Eighteenth Ward was a classy community compared 

Bruce Taylor, and LeGrand Young. 

25 Memorandum dated Feb. 1944, Box 10, fd 4. James Moyle was called to the 
Salt Lake Stake High Council in 1887 shortly after he moved into the Eighteenth 
Ward and served thereon until his death on 8 December 1890. See his short biogra- 
phy in Andrew Jenson, Latter-day Saint Biographical Encyclopedia, 4 vols. (1901; reprint 
ed., Salt Lake City: Western Epics, 1971), L;776-78. See also D&C 102; Joseph Smith, 
Jr., History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ed. by B. H. Roberts, 7 vols. 
(Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1904), 2:28-31. 

My History 

with the Fifteenth where we had always lived. Bishop Orson F. 
Whitney, a writer, poet, historian, and member of a prominent 
Church family, led the array of notables who lived within a 
stone’s throw of Brigham’s grave. Father’s home was on what 
theretofore had been a part of the President’s personal orchard 
and gardens adjoining his chief residences. The locality was the 
homes of the Youngs, Kimballs, Wellses, the President of the 
Church, the Richardses, Clawsons, Claytons, Spencers, Colonel 
Webber (Superintendent of ZCMI), the Pratts, Caines, Jenning- 
ses, and Church offices and the center of culture and wealth in 
ihe city. The result was that Father again became a comparative 
commoner. Nevertheless, it was not until after he had moved 
into this neighborhood in May of 1887 that he was ordained a 
high priest and made a high councilor. (He had been previously 
in the presidency of a quorum of seventies.) He had reached 
his zenith of official distinction. Even so, he might have become 
a city councillor had he remained in the Fifteenth Ward. In 
those days the best men available were elected, so to be a mem- 
ber of the city council was to be numbered among the highly 
regarded members of the community. 

At all events, that was certainly gravitating upward from be- 
ing only a leading ward teacher who was called on to lead in 
such things as building a nice new meeting house, or district 
school trustee. Father was ward school trustee. Our sphere in 
the Fifteenth Ward had been that of lowlanders near the out- 
skirts of the city. It was from that status that the family has 
emerged and become not only well-known through the state, 
but I know highly regarded as one of the prominent families of 
Utah, and how anxious 1 am for them at least to hold their own 
as 1 pray and believe they will. That was the first and the greatest 
ambition of my life.'" 

Loyalty and Conflict in the Church 

For more than seventy years I would have given my life for the 
Church, if 1 know myself, notwithstanding the fact that 1 was not 
a Church favorite but most of the lime quite the opposite. 1 had 
no potential leader in the Church at any time to promote my 

26 Memorandum dated Feb. 1944, Box 10, fd 4. 


Chapter 1 

interests, or one especially interested in my welfare. Outside of my 
humble father I had no acquaintance to even encourage me in the 
career I planned, when about fourteen, and which I followed 
throughout my life. On the contrary, those with whom I was most 
intimately associated thought it was a mistake and folly for me to 
attempt to be a lawyer. So this morning, very early, I was meditat- 
ing upon my past life, and the question forced itself upon my mind 
most impressively: Why have I been a loyal Mormon so long and 
so consistently? Why have I been willing and responsive to every 
call the Church has ever made on me to serve its interests without 
any promise of earthly reward and whatever the sacrifice or service 
to be rendered? The Church is noted for making calls on those 
who willingly respond, and 1 was no exception to the rule. Why 
have I paid to the Church one-tenth of my personal earning and 
the net income from all other sources of every nature and kind all 
of my life? 27 

While greatly absorbed in making a living from necessity in 
my profession, my heart was always in religion and public life. 
Because I was so absorbed in making a living and keeping in 
close touch with politics, the leadership of the Church turned a 
cold shoulder to me and I was not welcomed into the inner circles 
of higher authority. But I was always a propagandist of so-called 
Mormonism, even to the extent of depriving myself of the things 
like tea, coffee, wine, which I naturally liked. I also attended 
Church when I did not feel like it but quite to the contrary, 
because I felt it a duty and wanted to be a consistent exemplar 
of my religion and to lead my children to follow in my footsteps. 
All of this I did in the devoutly sincere belief that great eternal 
blessings would flow into me, including health, progress, and 
happiness in this life. I want to emphasize that my devotion to 
religion and politics cost me much in labor, money, and depri- 
vation of the passing pleasures which seemed to call for indul- 
gences I could not afford if I wanted to preserve my religion and 
to maintain my good name. 28 

As I ponder the intellectual, spiritual, and material (or earthly 
and selfish) conflicts that have been the tone of my life, I am 

27 Memorandum dated Feb.-Apr. 1944, Box 10, fd 6. 

28 Memorandum dated Dec. 1934, Box 9, fd 3. 

impressed as never before with the clear fact that when 1 have 
devoted myself to intellectual effort, there has followed intellectual 
development, corresponding with the extent and intensity of the 
effort. The same occurred spiritually when in spiritual activities. 
When I devoted myself to making money, promoting my profes- 
sional career and political ambition, I grew and developed in those 
directions according to the effort made in each. There were 
periods in each in which the development was clearly manifest. My 
knowledge and abilities in each direction was very evident. When 
my mind and time were engrossed in something more than any- 
thing else it influenced my thought and obscured to a significant 
degree all else. 

That was true in detail when I was on my first mission as a boy. 
At the conclusion of that mission and notwithstanding my life’s 
passion for an education and to become a lawyer and a force for 
good at home, I would have accepted a call from the Church to go 
on a ten-year mission to any heathen land, however backward it 
might be, even with the prospect of blighting my passion for 
education and intellectual development and the absorbing ambi- 
tion of my life to get somewhere and be somebody in the sphere 
of usefulness and honor. The same thing occurred when at the 
University of Michigan, where a new world of thought absorbed 
my soul, and an intellectual growth took place of which f was 
unconscious until I came home and came into contact with my old 
associates and former surroundings. Then I discovered that my 
outlook and views had been broadened and changed materially, 
though the fundamentals had remained the same. My mind had 
been broadened, my views and attitudes so enlarged that I saw the 
same things in a different light, and I literally painted realities in 
somewhat different colors. 25 ' 

Again, when I became absorbed with my profession and 
politics and was at war politically with the great majority of the 
leading Church authorities, my religious friends thought that I 
would leave the Church and were greatly concerned about it. 
There I was, absorbed with the earthly and selfish things of life, 
but always standing stoutly for the things I believed to be vital and 
worth fighting to uphold. But I was not making progress, to say 

29 Memorandum dated Mar. 1945, Box 12, fd 2. See below, chap. 3. 

Chapter 1 

the least, spiritually or religiously, because I was moved to the 
depths and absorbed in real combat with the men who were my 
spiritual standard-bearers in the Church for which I had always 
been ready to make any sacrifice, and still was. But again, there 
was a change in my attitude toward them and in my views. I could 
see their failings in a brighter light and much easier than before. 30 

There was a change in my outlook and views which I had to 
reconcile and harmonize. This was not an easy task, for I believed 
they had lowered their standards of spiritual guidance, even 
though I realized that they were not acting in a spiritual capacity 
but a purely political one. They themselves in the 1890s had 
declared that the political was separated from the spiritual, and 
that all members of the Church were not to be molested in politics 
by their ecclesiastical leaders in exercising their political privileges 
and duties as citizens. Yet, for my politics 1 was dropped from all 
official religious activity for nearly ten years around the turn of the 
century, but I never deviated from the religious affairs first at home 
and then in renewed missionary service, wherein, according to that 
activity and intensity of devotion to religious service, I enjoyed 
spiritual growth and religious happiness I could not have realized 
when in conflict with religious leaders. At the conclusion of my 
mission presidency in the early 1930s, both my wife and 1 were 
deeply impressed with the happiness that unselfish work had 
brought into our lives. No period in our married life had compared 
with it in real joy. That was reaffirmed in our seven years in 
Washington that followed and also will never be forgotten. Making 
money and losing some of it, and making more and keeping it, 
and the pleasure of spending and social gaiety, do not compare 
with the deeper and more lasting joy that comes to one for 
devotion and service unselfishly rendered in the interest of others, 
especially when done in the belief that it pertains not only to the 
fleeting days on earth but eternity. Again, nothing else compares 
with it, for the joy therefrom is completely unique. My conclusion 
is that come what may, there is only one way to keep in time and 
touch with the infinite, and that is by cultivating and following the 
divine light that is ever present and evident to all who live unsel- 
fishly and who daily pray for it and keep in touch with that which 

30 Memorandum dated Mar. 1945, Box 12, fd 2. See below, chaps. 4-5. 

My History 

develops it. That Savior of all mankind pointed the way and gave 
the keys to the happiness and the way to life eternal when he left 
his apostles and ascended to heaven, and said: “Go ye into all the 
world and preach the gospel to every creature and he that believeth 
and is baptized shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be 
damned.” So the Lord’s Supper is very important. Without partak- 
ing of the sacrament, the symbol of all righteousness, when avail- 
able, with pure intent and faith in Christ, the everlasting fellowship 
of the Holy Ghost and the spirit of Divinity will be lost. No matter 
how much good you may have done, virtue exhibited in your life, 
or the spiritual manifestations you may have witnessed, and faith 
you may once have had, you will fall away from the Church .’ 1 

Conservatism and the Church 

Yet with all of this I cannot very well refrain from writing of 
our Church leaders and their conservatism. It is a strange but 
explainable phenomenon. In the first place they have always had 
conservative tendencies. Whenever an institution becomes an 
established, recognized, and permanent power, it becomes easy to 
be in sympathy with other institutional powers, and that is the 
seed-bed of conservatism. It is much like gravity. Kindred souls 
harmonize. Think, for example, of the depths to which the Church 
sank in supporting Russian autocracy. ’' Its extremes justified the 
revolution against it, for its virtues could not obliterate its atroci- 
ties from the souls of men. That which happened to the once noble 
Catholic Church in the Middle Ages was due to similar elements 
of reaction and love of power. But the policy of supporting what 
is rather than what should be has been one of the most fatal errors 
of mankind. For long-established institutions naturally become 
static unless the right prevails over the wrong, and the wrong had 
always prevailed where stagnation set in, because man either 
progresses or retrogresses. There is no such a thing in the plan of 
divinity as standing still. Man either goes forward or backward. 

The active forces in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day 
Saints today are operating on very different lines than in the days 
of my youth, though they are fundamentally the same. In other 

31 Memorandum dated Mar. 1945, Box 12, fd 2. 

32 Memorandum dated Nov. 1944, Box 11, fd 4. 

Chapter 1 

words, the Church today is perfecting the organizational details of 
the main fundamentals of pioneer days. Then it was a struggle for 
the extension of comforts, and so the concomitant emphasis in the 
Church is upon the perfection of the machinery of operation in 
the organization. It is rapidly becoming multitudinous in its de- 
tailed operations. The meetings of the priesthood are now multi- 
plied out of sight of what they were when I was a boy, and I think 
more than doubled since I became a high councilman in 1904. For 
example, the presidency of the high priests’ quorum consisted 
largely of presiding at a monthly meeting. Now it is a complicated 
mechanism, and nearly a full-time job. 

Today, the Church organization, with its new committees, 
keeps a detailed record of every man— what he is, what he does, 
and what can be expected of him in minute detail. I think it 
compares favorably with the most perfectly organized industry, 
bank, manufactory, transportation, or other business corpora- 
tion. The Presiding Bishop, the President of the Church, the 
president of a stake, or the bishop of a ward has convenient 
reports of the weekly religious activities of every male member 
of the Church. That kind of information was carried only in the 
minds of men in a very general way when I became active in 
Church government. But the point I should like to make is that 
the power of wealth and its influence on men has spilled over 
into Church administration. I have in mind particularly the in- 
fluence of wealth on the men who determine the policy of the 
great Church of Utah, and how much it has to do with the politics 
of the state. The policy-making for the Church is determined by 
the First Presidency, in consultation with the Quorum of the 
Twelve. When they agree on fundamentals, the Presidency carries 
out the policy much as a president and manager of a great 
corporation does with the executive committee (the Twelve) in 
the background. The President, of course, exercises a veto power. 
His conclusion is the final word. To determine from without what 
that word will be is a very difficult proposition. For in the Church, 
the major issues are determined only after prayer and supplica- 
tion for divine guidance. No one on the outside can determine 
how far the latter is controlling, and even the President himself 
may be in doubt as to just where the lines should be drawn and 
what the decision should be. 

My History 

One thing can be noted with certainty, and that is that when 
a decision is made on matters which are to be approved by the 
Priesthood generally and Church members, it will stand effec- 
tively, and there are rare cases where it is revised or abandoned. 
But in the details not so acted upon, mistakes are made more or 
less like those of all mortal activities. So that system works out 
admirably in the end. As to politics, which have always weighed 
heavily on my mind, there are striking variations. My views have 
been in serious conflict with those of the First Presidency as a 
rule on what I call the major issues, but which I admit may not 
be such. 1 may have in my mind a narrower horizon than they 
have. All I want to do is to present my views and let them stand 
on their merits so that each person can enjoy the freedom of 
conviction. In rendering my conclusions, I try to take into con- 
sideration the environment in which I and they move. In that 
respect, I attach much importance to the environment of wealth 
with which the members of the First Presidency are now sur- 
rounded. 1 thoroughly believe the human environment, more 
than the spiritual, has much to do with important decisions, as 
do also the background of the individuals, and their charac- 
teristics, personal and otherwise. For example, the President of 
the Church has long been a director of the Union Pacific Railroad 
and enjoys the privileges and advantages of that office such as 
an occasional private car, travel privileges, director’s compensa- 
tion, etc. His point of view is therefore naturally altered by that 
human experience. 3 ’ 

Church Interference in Politics 

From the time of the first Democratic state convention in the 
Salt Lake Theater, in which I took a prominent part, until even 
long after I was made a high councilman at the creation of the 
Ensign Stake, I was viewed with serious doubt because of my 
outspoken fight against the leadership of the Church in politics, 
and notably against the activities of Apostles Francis Lyman and 
John Henry Smith who personally worked with Mormon Demo- 
crats to become Republicans while visiting conferences, attending 
priesthood meetings, and in every other way possible. I also spoke 

33 Memorandum dated Nov. 1944, Box 1 1 , fd 4. 

out against the quiet and indirect influence in the same direction 
of the President of the Church, Joseph F. Smith, which unmistak- 
ably indicated his wishes. His will and wishes were all some needed 
to know to cause them to change their affiliations, in anything 
whatever, except religious principles. Yet, for Utah to obtain 
statehood was always the great political goal which the Republican 
Party nationally opposed. Its national platforms always carried a 
declaration against slavery and polygamy, the latter of which 
everybody recognized as a declaration against Mormonism. The 
orthodox clergy quite generally demanded it, and all recognized 
and believed Mormonism and polygamy to be synonymous, and 
that polygamy was the chief cornerstone and foundation of Mor- 

Republican carpetbag territorial officials thought they had 
the duty of reforming the Mormons religiously as well as politi- 
cally. That was the prevailing attitude of Republican official domi- 
nation at the time when Utah was making its many efforts to 
obtain statehood and was continually denied by Republican ad- 
ministrations and congresses. There were always distinguished 
Democrats from the South who, while disclaiming in Congress 
equally with Republicans any sympathy for polygamy, proclaimed 
their democratic belief and devotion to the right of even the 
Mormons to govern themselves. State sovereignty is the funda- 
mental and chief cornerstone of Democratic principles, and Utah 
should ever keep green the memory of the names of those south- 
ern Senators and Congressmen, and of Jeremiah Black of Penn- 
sylvania, and finally of Grover Cleveland who signed Utah’s ena- 
bling act. 

But a deal was evidently made by President Joseph F. Smith, 
Bishop Hiram Clawson, and maybe some others, to make Utah 
Republican, notwithstanding the fact that the first administration 
having an opportunity and the sympathy to give Utah freedom 
from carpetbag rule was Democratic. In justification for President 
Smith’s action (he was a counselor at the time to the President of 
the Church), it was claimed with some justification that Republican 
help was needed to insure the passage of the bill. The details as to 
that I leave to the historian. It is true, however, that by all the rules 
governing my life, the Democrats and not the Republicans (al- 

My History 

though some Republicans voted for the measure) were entitled to 
the credit." 

I cannot get away from the foregoing history, however much 
I might like to make a better showing for our religious leaders. 1 
do believe more now than I did in the sincerity and purity of their 
purpose. And I am sure of their loyalty to their people. I am also 
sure, however, that they, very humanly, and after becoming avowed 
Republicans, became narrow and objectionable partisans, such as 
Latter-day Saints in present times would resent at the polls if not 
elsewhere. As to my own status with the Church leaders, they 
gradually moderated and softened, so that before the death of 
President Joseph F. Smith, whom I considered the most efficient 
enemy of the Democratic Party, he frankly did me the justice of 
saying that I was a manly opponent who fought in the open and 
never struck below the belt. He said this both to Heber J. Grant 
and to General Richard W. Young. 1, 

The similar problem with which I am wrestling currently is 
what has led the President of the Church to create an atmosphere 
around him in his headquarters and among those near him and 
who look to him for leadership in all things, of the most intense 
opposition to the President of the United States. I believe that the 
man who has been elected President of the Nation four times 
cannot deserve the downright hatred of the leadership of the 
Church. Still, that atmosphere encourages the belief that the man 
thus trusted and respected is the greatest enemy the nation has 
had within its boundaries, that he is leading the nation into 
Communism, and to the destruction of our sacred Constitution 
and what has come to be known as the American way of life. I do 
not know that I have overdrawn the picture. I would not do it 
knowingly. Pending the election, the Presiding Patriarch of the 
Church said to his confidential friend, my son-in-law, that he did 
not see how a Latter-day Saint could consistently vote to support 

34 Memorandum dated Dec. 1934, Box 9, fd 3. See Gustive O. Larson, The 
‘'Americanization” of Utah for Statehood (San Marino, CA: Huntington Library, 1971), 
pp. 283-304. See also the bitter but interesting primaiy account of this “deal” in Frank 
J. Cannon and Harvey J. O’Higgins, Under the Prophet in Utah (Boston: C. M. Clarke, 
1911). The definitive work on the subject is Edward Leo Lyman, Political Deliverance: 
The Mormon Quest for Utah Statehood (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1986). 

35 Memorandum dated Dec. 1934, Box 9, fd 3. 

Chapter 1 

President Roosevelt, putting the issue on religious grounds. He is 
a former professor of speech at the University of Utah, a student 
and a thinker, but for years living in the atmosphere to which I 
refer. President Grant himself is reliably represented as saying that 
he turns the radio off when the President speaks over it even on 
questions of importance, and that his blood pressure goes up 
dangerously when one whom he respects speaks to him in a 
pronounced way about the virtues of the President. I am his 
life-long friend, and heretofore felt free to express myself on 
partisan politics to him, but for about two or more years refrained 
from doing so for fear that it would be injurious to his health. Mrs. 
Richard W. Young, a Roosevelt enthusiast, while his guest on an 
automobile ride, openly opposed his views concerning President 
Roosevelt, and President Grant’s family reported that the conver- 
sation was highly injurious to the feeble Brother Grant.’' 

If I am mistaken and Presidents Grant and Clark are justified, 
then the greater the glory for them and the greater the condem- 
nation for me. My purpose is righteous. I want nothing written or 
done that would suggest anything else. I attach real importance to 
this subject, and I want to verify my facts and conclusions as far as 
I can do so. May God help me to avoid error and especially 
injustice. I am conscious of dealing with a delicate subject and want 
to avoid arousing doubts about the divinity of the work the men I 
differ with politically are doing. They are good and faithful men 
devoted to the cause of truth and justice, but after all, fallible men 
are all the Lord has on earth to use. Those thus used are so much 
like other men that it is hard to determine whether they are 
inspired of God on a particular issue or by their own mortal, fallible 
views. We are all more or less what our associations and interests 
make us. We can cultivate unconsciously error or truth, one as 
easily as the other. I want to be right, but it is often easy to mistake 
error for truth. Yet I am determined that truth shall be my guide, 
and that I will be true to the truth come what may. Indeed, my 
ambition and hope for the truth grows with my later years, but I 
have always wanted to be the enemy of error. I have sought 

36 Memorandum dated Nov. 1944, Box 11, fd 4. See Frank H. Jonas, “Utah: 

The Different State,” in Frank H. Jonas, ed., Politics in the American West (Salt Lake 
City: University of Utah Press, 1969), pp. 332-33. 

My History 

strongly for what I conceived to be the right, and now as an 
octogenarian more than ever, I am deeply impressed with the 
thought that exposure of error in this case will be healthy. 

I am continually amazed and shocked that the leadership of 
the Church today interferes in politics with such a one-sided, 
partisan view. My chagrin increases as I contemplate the declara- 
tion of the Church leaders in 1895, when they were praying for 
statehood, that pledged complete noninterference in politics. I am 
impressed, possibly unduly, with the inconsistency of the position 
of the Brethren regarding politics, because of the probability that 
the future will not justify the same. On the contrary, if the future 
does justify them, which seems now unlikely, what a striking 
evidence it will be of their divine guidance, and my lack of that 
wisdom for which I have fervently prayed. In any case, I have no 
doubt about the Church going forward regardless of the mistakes 
of their leaders in matters such as politics which they have so 
specifically and publicly declared were out of their sphere, particu- 
larly so far as relates to ecclesiastical influence being used to lead 
the people in matters concerning how they should vote in purely 
political affairs. I repeat, they have specifically declared that eccle- 
siastical influence would not be used in politics, but that the voter 
should be free from Church influence in determining how and for 
whom he would vote. That, of course, did not preclude the official 
Church news organ from keeping its readers informed on the 
issues of an election, and the dangers it involved. What I denounce 
and believe to be an error is that in presenting those dangers to 
public welfare, only one side is given. The policy-making of the 
paper is in the hands of strong conservatives who had no commen- 
dation or even tolerance for the New Deal reforms of the 1930s. 
Ironically enough, those conservatives now (1944) support the 
New Deal through their support of the Republican candidates, 
who not only approve of those reforms but propose to widen their 
sphere significantly. So the News, in effect, opposes the greater 
conservatism of FDR whose leadership the Church authorities 
seem to believe is a real menace to the nation. 3 ' 

37 Memorandum dated Nov. 1944, Box 1 1, fd 3. This is an interesting twist on 
Roosevelt with which historians may or may not agree. For some strong but critical 
agreement (on Roosevelt’s conservatism), see particularly Barton J. Bernstein, “The 


Chapter 1 

When the editorials in the Deseret News opened a campaign in 
1944 to undermine the sentiment in favor of FDR, it was apparent 
that they were scraping the bottom of the can to find the littlest 
excuse for sniping at the President. Just how far did it speak or 
encourage loyalty to the head of the nation who was performing 
magnificently in battling the most important threat civilization 
itself ever confronted? At the same time it was giving direct aid 
and encouragement to the Republican candidate for the Presi- 
dency, youthful and inexperienced in every sphere which would 
qualify him for action in the leadership of war and international 
peace. It was a real case of wanting to send a boy to mill in a storm 
never before equalled or even thought of, and at a time when the 
inexperienced Republican was basing his campaign chiefly on the 
grounds that he could do the job more efficiently than President 
Roosevelt whose entire life had been devoted to qualifying himself 
for that work he was doing so well. What a pitiful sight it presents 
for men claiming to be guided by divine light in a matter of such 
importance and in which they know so many look to the Deseret 
News for the most accurate and non-partisan information. It is even 
worse to contemplate the fact that after the election, the only word 
of Christian expression regarding the decisive decision of the 
people that the News could come up with was that loyalty to 
government demands that we must all support the decision that 
has been made. Is there anything less that it could have said?' 8 

My radio address of November 4, 1944, was approved as no 
other I ever delivered, by prominent life-long Republicans and 
Democrats, Mormons and non-Mormons. The one thing that 
brought the most favorable comment was the courage it required 
to speak of the Deseret News as I did. It was generally believed (as 

New Deal: The Conservative Achievements of Liberal Reform,” in Barton J. Bern- 
stein, ed.. Towards a New Past: Dissenting Essays in American History (New York, 1968); 
Paul K. Conkin, The New Deal (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1967). Moyle con- 
sistently refused to deny positively the correctness of the position of the Mormon lead- 
ers with regard to interference in politics, but he was apparently convinced within 
himself that they had allowed their personal desires to override their sense of respon- 
sibility as ecclesiastes. See also Circular Letter of the First Presidency, CR 1-1, 4-6 Apr. 
1896, CLA. 

88 Memorandum dated Nov. 1944, Box 1 1, fd 3. See News editorials through the 
fall of 1944. See especially Deseret News, 8 Nov. 1944. 


My History 

the fact was) that I also included conspicuously Church leaders 
among those who had shocked my sensibilities by charging the 
President of the United States with being an enemy of the nation, 
a Communist leading the nation into Communism. If such should 
ultimately be found to be true, I want to emphasize the fact that 
only the Invisible One could have made the fact known to fallible 
man, and the Church should profit therefrom, because if that was 
the source of their knowledge, it was not clear at all to me. It should 
be known to future generations (as it is now to all) that the Church 
leadership as never before has the counsel of distinguished and 
highly respected functionaries in both parties, real national leaders 
in politics on both sides, and leaders in banking, finance, industry, 
ecclesiastics, and business generally, and many well-informed 
farmers and intellectuals. It has ever been that wealthy and the 
more favored, established classes have been the chief supporters 
of reaction. All churches, as soon as they become strongly estab- 
lished and recognized, become conservative and opponents of 
change, and ever the inevitable progress of time. So it is that the 
Church leadership, which I admire and support generally in its 
sphere out of politics, bitterly and immovably opposes the advanced 
policies of President Roosevelt. But it is the great middle class that 
furnishes the leadership that actually moves and dominates a free 
people, and the masses control the great issues. Wealth and the 
highly intellectual may lead at times, but the masses ultimately 
determine the course of the nation. '* 1 

Greatness and Error in Men 

I would not have my posterity think that I am the worshipper 
of a man. I have often said that he who pins his faith to any man’s 
coattails will lose his salvation. I have read that truth in the mistakes 
I have noted in the life of the greatest of all of God’s prophets, 
Joseph Smith. I have personally seen much of the same in the lives 
of Joseph Smith’s greatest successor, Brigham Young, and each of 
his successors, all of whom are human beings with all the weak- 
nesses of human beings and with all the exhibitions of those 
human failings as you can find in the greatest of the ancient 
prophets and leaders of God’s work on earth, such as in David and 

39 Memorandum dated Nov. 1944, Box 11, fd 3. 

Chapter 1 

Solomon, and in the meridian of time in Peter, the rock upon 
which the great Catholic Church builds its faith, who denied in the 
hour of trial that he even knew his Lord and Savior. I speak of the 
apparently greatest Christian Church on earth, which has done so 
much good, and has attained real greatness in the earth, and yet 
one can easily find the greatest of all human weakness in some of 
its popes, and one marvels at the possibilities of their atrocious 
accomplishment in the name of the Divine Son. One may note the 
same when coming down to the Reformation and its marvelous 
achievements under the leadership of such men as Luther and 
Calvin. The latter, as I remember, stood by in Geneva like St. Paul 
and rejoiced in the burning to death of a martyr to the cause of 
truth. I marvel at the burning of Savonarola on the public plaza of 
Florence, Italy." 1 That name comes to me forcibly and somewhat 
proudly because of the declaration of Frank B. Stevens in the Salt 
Lake Theater before a large political gathering that I was a modern 
Savonarola. I immodestly refer to that not because 1 think I merit 
that applause, for I know I do not at all, but because it has been 
my life’s ambition to be at least in a small way what he was in a 
great way to those whom he loved and for whose welfare he was 
willing to suffer even a most horrid and torturous death. I pledged 
my life when at school to stay with my people in their fight under 
ecclesiastical leadership as long as that was by that leadership 
deemed wise, but when that same leadership ended the fight and 
division on national political lines followed, as I was sure it would, 
then I would have to be a free lance. I therefore declared in the 
meeting that dissolved our Peoples Party my allegiance to the 
Democratic Party to which I had been patriotically devoted from 
my earliest remembrance of things political. When about sixteen 
1 bad attended my first political primary. When in school in 
Michigan 1 attended my first State Democratic Convention at 
Detroit and my first National Democratic Convention in Chicago 
(which nominated Cleveland) in 1884, which was eight years 
before we had a Democratic Party in Utah, except for the “sage- 

40 Memorandum dated Nov. 1944, Box 11, fd 3. Girolamo Savonarola (1452-98) 
was a Dominican priest and ascetic who was hung from a cross and burned in 
Florence for “heresy.” In actuality, he had gained the disfavor of the Catholic hierar- 
chy with his rigorous denunciations of corruption and malfeasance in high places. 


My History 

brushes” in 1886 who only figured to speak of Democratic princi- 
ples rather than as members or for the accomplishment of Demo- 
cratic victory. I was with them in principle, though in the election 
of 1886 I was running for county attorney on the Peoples Party 
Ticket to which I was also devoted in its fight against the anti- 
Mormon Liberal Party. 41 

The Pattern of Church Leadership 

I am further impressed with the thought that President Grant 
may be, if he lives much longer, the last of the old-time, pioneer 
testimony-bearing presidents of the Church. It is that which makes 
him outstanding more than anything else in my mind. Neither of 
his counselors follow his example in testifying with emphasis and 
directness that God lives and that Jesus is the Christ and that 
Joseph Smith is the great prophet of this dispensation. It is true, 
however, that they say the same thing in less direct terms. In other 
words, they soften it, make it more indirect and inferential. It is 
also true, nevertheless, that George Albert Smith, who is next in 
line but in very delicate health, is largely of the old type, and that 
George F. Richards, following him, is the same, both in health, age, 
and expression. Their age and health gives little evidence of a 
prolonged and impressive administration. The next in line is a man 
whom most members think will distinguish himself as the presi- 
dent, David O. McKay. But he, too, is not in the best of health, and 
is not so much younger, being in his seventies. But he is so highly 
spiritual, intellectual, educated, naturally refined and appealing as 
a religious leader that many think that he, in the Providence of the 
Lord, will be the man who will make the next record of importance 
in the natural course of human events. Such is my own view, 
because Joseph Fielding Smith precedes the I wo intellectuals and 
educated thinkers, Stephen L. Richards and Joseph F. Merrill. 
Also, he is in good health while the two are not in the best of health. 
It is therefore apparent that there is no prospect of another 
thirty-year administration of one man. Men are selected now when 

41 Memorandum dated Nov. 1944, Box 1 1, fd 3. Jonas, “The Different State,” p. 
328, places the founding of Sagebrush Democracy at 1888. See additionally Charles 
C. Richards, The Organization and Growth of the Democratic Party in Utah, 1847-1896 
(Salt Lake City: Sagebrush Democratic Club, 1942). 


Chapter 1 

they have demonstrated over the years their fitness for the office 
of an apostle and not so much because of their parentage, as was 
the case with both Heber J. Grant and Joseph Fielding Smith. 

I must not fail to say what I had in mind saying earlier, that 
George A. Smith is a most lovable, spiritual-minded man of broad 
travel and experience that adds to his fitness for the place, and the 
Lord could easily prolong his life and enable him to make an 
outstanding record. I would think it would be spiritual rather than 
political and material, and though he is Republican, I think he is 
a great man. He was never naturally fitted for great leadership, but 
his fine sense of right, his natural spirituality and deep sympathy, 
fine ideals and faith would make him more susceptible to spiritual 
promptings than a man of greater education and dominating 
intellectuality. I believe he would make, as long as his health would 
permit activity, as splendid a president as there ever was, because 
inspiration would be the dominating factor. 

I also believe that the Church needs age and experience, with 
great faith, and strong human sympathies and spirituality. The 
practical has had its right-of-way for a long time, but with all the 
tendencies of President Grant for business and money matters, 
and his natural tastes in that direction and his admiration for men 
successful in business, there has always been a substantial degree 
of generosity in his private and public career. Note, for example, 
his large gifts of books. Also, his contribution, though small, to the 
University of Utah was a pioneer one in that direction, and not 
inconsistent with his property holdings or income. It was charac- 
teristic of him. IJ 

I am convinced that President Clark is the real cause of the 
political errors of the First Presidency. I would like to see a 
comparative study of both Anthony W. Ivins andj. Reuben Clark, 
showing how each influenced the President of the Church and his 
policies. I believe that out of that study would come a most 
interesting and instructive chapter, and that good would come 
from it as it might exhibit some of President Clark’s shortcomings 
on the political side, which I definitely oppose. Nevertheless, I 

42 Memorandum dated Nov. 1944, Box 11, fd 3. Grant habitually gave away 
books with which he was impressed, sometimes sending out hundreds of copies of a 
single book. Over the years Moyle had been a recipient of many of these. 


My History 

hope I live long enough to see my error if it be such, and that I am 
able to make ample apology, and to take advantage of the oppor- 
tunity to understand how the Lord works through such men. If it 
is true, as my son Henry asserts, that President Clark is no more 
partisan than President McKay, which I cannot now think, then 
the fact of my error is made clear. And what it all means, and what 
the result from it all will be, I cannot say/ ! 

Their minor mistakes (as I see them) will probably be soon 
forgotten, just as I witnessed with the criticisms of Brigham Young, 
which loomed large and were numerous in the last days of Presi- 
dent Young, but were soon forgotten and are now never men- 
tioned. I do not know but that there was some fire where there 
was so much smoke; indeed, I cannot help but think there was 
considerable fire, because he did make many mistakes, as every big 
as well as little man does. 

Divine Guidance in Church Affairs 

There is nothing I commend more than efforts of the Brethren 
to keep the Saints free from debt and dependence, and to preserve 
their individual independence, initiative, thrift, self-respect, useful 
endeavor, and determination to be self-supporting, productive 
members of society, and to avoid cultivating a willingness to have 
others provide for them when they are able to provide for them- 
selves. 1 appreciate the cultivation of frugality, industry, honest 
labor, and thrift especially. Without those virtues the community 
and the nation will degenerate and fail. Idleness is truly the devil’s 
workshop. At sixty-five I was in my prime. For me to have given up 
life’s work would have been next to criminal. I was then well-fitted 
for the best work of my life. At seventy I was president of a mission 
of 165 missionaries in the busiest center of population in America, 
including the states of New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Con- 
necticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maryland, Delaware, and 
the District of Columbia. At seventy-five I was invited to take 
charge of the collection of revenue from the tariff, and ran the 

43 Memorandum dated Nov. 1944, Box 11, fd 3. In this passage (in context) 
Moyle was asking Evans to write such a comparative study. There is no evidence, how- 
ever, that it was ever done, although there are countless references in Moyle’s memo- 
randa to the change that took place in the political attitude of President Grant after 
the death of Ivins. 


Chapter 1 

Bureau of Customs with more than 10,000 employees scattered 
over the main centers of the world. I think I can say my record in 
it was excellent. At eighty-one I became Assistant to the Secretary 
of the Treasury. Finally, at eighty-three I was made president of a 
high priests’ quorum. 

From all the foregoing I cannot resist the conclusion that 
surely there is divine guidance in the affairs of the Church and it 
is that alone upon which it stands. He who knows the future as well 
as the past and present has devised a good method of selecting 
presidents, and thus far it has been eminently successful. The big 
things were accomplished by men of mature years. Brigham 
Young, afterjoseph Smith, had the greatest problems. John Taylor 
fit equally into the period of his administration. Wilford Woodruff, 
the apparently least fitted of all for outstanding leadership in 
practical affairs, had some of the most vital practical problems to 
meet, such as the continuance of the practice of polygamy and the 
economic problem of labor and employment, and he met both in 
a masterly way, though throughout his life spirituality was his 
dominating and most outstanding characteristic. In the field of 
politics and diplomacy in a small way, which I illustrate in my own 
experience with him in politics over the Gibbs letter, 14 1 believe he 
did better than George Q. Cannon, his first counselor, would have 
done. And George Q. Gannon was a natural diplomat and experi- 
enced in political affairs, whereas President Woodruff was not. 
Lorenzo Snow, though not a great success in business, had shown 
resourcefulness in his leadership in initiating business undertak- 
ings in the Box Elder area over which he presided. He then showed 
great leadership in getting the Church, when seriously embar- 
rassed, out of debt. Joseph F. Smith’s long administration (though 
I criticize heartily his politics) was a marked period of advancement 
in matters both material and spiritual. I doubt that there was any 
other man in the Church who would have done better under the 
circumstances. Heber J. Grant’s administration is too close to 

44 Memorandum dated Nov. 1944, Box 11, fd 3. The Gibbs letter (or Gibbs- 
Logan letter) affair involved a message from George F. Gibbs, secretary to the First 
Presidency, on official stationery to Cache Valley Mormon leaders during the Wood- 
ruff administration suggesting that the Saints should vote for the Republican ticket to 
be in line with “their file leaders,” meaning the general authorities. See Evans manu- 
script, Box 18, fd 2. 


My History 

survey wisely and well, but during the Smith administration, Heber 
took a back seat in business matters except when it was necessary 
to raise money for some urgent reason. Then he was foremost, and 
ever ready, and on hand and successful, as he very naturally and 
worthily loves to tell. The fact remains that while he was not a great 
intellectual preacher or writer, or doctrinal expounder, or intellec- 
tual student of the religion, and often said he never had received 
as president a revelation from the Lord to present to the people, 
he nevertheless is now, in his 88th year, at the largest and most 
important affairs in industry and finance in our great nation. His 
administration will undoubtedly go into history as one of great 
accomplishment. It will show, as does that of each of his predeces- 
sors, that there was a great work to be done in his time, and that 
he did it well. 45 

My Motive: Let Truth Prevail 

1 want to present the whole story of my relationship with the 
Church as favorably as it can be done to the Church officials, to 
give them every benefit of the doubt. But I will present the facts 
truthfully and fully just as they are. This may not be published in 
my lifetime, but its presentation should be such as to do no 
injustice to any good man and the great cause of righteousness. 
The weakness of men should be exposed so as to make others more 
guarded, to diminish injustice and future errors. I hope to present 
it in the most friendly, fair way, so that no criticism of my motives 
can be made. Let truth prevail, error be avoided, and injustice 
never confront my record. Leave the way clear for my mistakes 
also to be corrected and exposed. Let the truth triumph in justifi- 
cation of what I am trying to expose as error. 

With that preface I will feel freer to say some things that have 
perennially disturbed my mind, but thank God never soured it, 
and with His help nothing ever will. There is too much good in all 
good men ever to condemn them wholly. It is that good which in 
the end counts and turns the balance in their favor. It is also my 
experience that men who do good things are more numerous than 
we generally realize. With all their mistakes, in the final recount- 
ing, the good outweighs the bad so much that the bad will finally 

45 Memorandum dated Nov. 1944, Box 11, fd 3. 

Chapter 1 

be out of sight and the good ever be in the light. Whenever I hive 
tried to write about what I think is bad, the good has forced itself 
so strongly on my mind that I am left to wonder whether wild I 
have in mind is worth the effort. For example, because of my dep 
interest in the career ofj. Reuben Clark, Jr., in the Church ofjesjs 
Christ of Latter-day Saints and its influence on the affairs of tie 
Church, I am made to realize that we are each opposed partisais 
in politics and that may make me at least unfitted for an impartal 
relation even of the facts. But I must try. 4t> 

46 Memorandum dated Nov. 1944, Box 11, fd 4. See additionally for this intro- 
ductory chapter the following: memorandum dated Sept. 1945, Box IS, fd 1; memo- 
randum dated July 1945, Box 12, fd 3. 

Chapter 2 


My father James Moyle was a young, lone man, only two years in 
the territory from England when he married Elizabeth Wood in 
1856. Just twenty-two years old, he was a stone-cutter employed 
chiefly on what was called “Public Works,” or the building of the 
Salt Lake Temple. President Heber C. Kimball knew him and 
advised that he locate on the rich, fertile land at Fifth West near 
First South. There I was born on September 17, 1858. 

Real West Enders 

Little irrigating was needed on our land because the water 
stood near the surface, and good drinking water could be had 
by digging for an hour in easy soil and soft clay. All else needed 
was to get some stones and build around the soil and clay to a 
depth of about six feet to get an ample supply of water. In 
contrast, where President Kimball lived, and in fact most places, 
it was necessary to go down in solid picking gravel about forty 
or fifty feet and forever after draw water that distance, to say 
nothing of building and keeping the well clean. But a pump was 
not necessary on Fifth West. A rope and bucket were all that was 
needed. There were only two homes in our ward on Seventh 
West and I was baptized where the street is now on Second South 
between Sixth and Seventh West in water about four feet deep. 
We were real west enders. 1 

1 Memorandum dated Feb. 1944, Box 10, fd 4, James Henry Moyle Collection, 


Chapter 2 

Father was a builder, and with his partners he erected several 
cut-stone business houses on Main Street. But Father’s largest 
contracts were on and during the construction of the Union Pacific 
Railroad in the erection of stone piers and abutments for bridges 
and in the large, stone roundhouse at Evanston, Wyoming. It stood 
and was used until not many years ago. Father and his partner did 
most of the stone work on the western division of the Union 
Pacific. His contracts were subcontracts under those of Brigham 
Young and Bishop John Sharp, who later was a director of the 

The construction engineer of the Union Pacific evinced his 
high opinion of Father by always coming to him when he was in 
trouble. If he could not get Father’s services, he would ask him to 
recommend a reliable and competent man. He would ask him also 
to send reliable, good mechanics. He said to Father that he could 
rely on Mormon workmen as he could not on the men who were 
transients in the country. 2 

Father’s first partner was John Parry. When Parry later went 
on a mission to Wales, Father and Peter Gillespie became part- 
ners when there was a job big enough for the two. At the other 
times both worked on the Temple Block which was always open 
for stonecutters. The pay was mostly tithing scrip which was sold 
for much less than cash due to the scarcity and frequent poor 
quality of tithing goods. The flour, molasses, potatoes, and such, 
however, were generally good. The bran and shorts were fine for 
the milk cow and pigs, which every man of a family generally 
had if he was at all thrifty. If not thrifty enough for that, he was 
indeed unfortunate. 

My father andjohn Parry built in 1 869 the old Walker Brothers 
Building on South Main. While erecting that building, Father had 
to go to Alpine to help my grandfather, John Rowe Moyle. He had 
injured his leg and the favorably known physician of Provo, Dr. 
Pike, had done his best to save the leg but gangrene had set in. 

Library-Archives, Historical Department, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 
Salt Lake City, hereinafter cited as CLA. All references hereinafter to box and folder 
(fd) are for items from this collection. 

2 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 4. See Robert G. Athearn, “Contracting for 
the Union Pacific,” Utah Historical Quarterly 37 (Winter 1969): 16-40. 

Young Mormon 

Consequently, Father took Mother, me, and Dr. Ormsby, the 
leading surgeon in Utah, to Alpine to amputate Grandfather’s leg 
below the knee. We made a new record for time on that trip in the 
wagon pulled by father’s fine pair of mules. I remember that 
Joseph A. Young, son of Brigham and father of General Dick 
(Richard W. Young), tried unsuccessfully to pass the team with his 
fine horses on the road to his farm west of the Jordan River at 
about Ninth or Tenth South. He was always sporty with horses and 
had his own race track at or near the farm. This was the place where 
at another time I saw Porter Rockwell make a horseman put down 
his two pistols.’ 

The Moyles of Alpine 

My grandfather’s home in Alpine was a unique experience in 
itself. He had built a tower as a fort against the Indians. The tower 
could be entered only through an opening on the level of the 
ground and by crawling down about two feet and going through 
an opening in the foundation just large enough for a man to pass 
and then up two feet to the floor of the tower. A man with a club 
could easily close the opening. The rooms of the tower were about 
seven or eight feet high. The roof was never completed, except 
that it was covered temporarily with brush. I slept in it often with 
Uncle Joe who was less than a year older than I . 1 

The home was about thirty or forty feet east. The farm road 
ran between the tower and home. Had the Indians given serious 
trouble, Grandfather contemplated constructing a tunnel connect- 
ing the two. The home consisted of two good-sized rooms, the walls 
of which were two feet thick of solid granite boulders from the 
surroundings. Granite prevailed in Cornwall, where he came from, 
and Grandfather was at home with the granite which abounded 

• ! Memorandum dated Sept., Nov.-Dee. 1943, Box 10, fd 3. 

4 Memorandum dated Aug., Oct. 1941, Box 9, fd 6. The “tower fort" in Alpine 
has been the subject of much publicity over the years. It is still standing in 1997, but 
despite efforts to restore it, it continues to deteriorate. See an example of James H. 
Moyle’s attempts to restore or at least to preserve the structure in Gene A. Sessions, 
ed., "A View of James Henry Moyle: His Diaries and Letters," unpublished manu- 
script, 1974, CLA, pp. 95-97. Joseph E. Moyle was the youngest son of John Rowe 
Moyle. See his autobiography in Sessions, "Biographies and Reminiscences,” sec. 9. 
See additionally the sections on John Rowe Moyle, Phillippa Beer Moyle, Stephen 
Moyle, Henry Moyle, and john Moyle in ibid., secs. 2-3, 6-8. 

Chapter 2 

on and around the farm. The house was typical of many of the 
homes now to be seen in Cornwall. Some of the old walls are now 
in the modern home built some years since from parts of the old 
rooms by his son Joseph. 

The fences around the home, orchard, and garden were all 
built of granite with the earth only as mortar, but they were so 
massive and well-constructed that they would be still standing but 
for the idea that struck Uncle Joe and his family of having things 
modern. Hence, the unique surroundings so much like that in 
Cornwall and other parts of England have vanished forever, except 
for the crumbling remains of the old tower. I pleaded with Joe for 
years to have it rebuilt, but he did not, because his wife (troubled 
with nervousness) thought it would attract strangers and thereby 
disturb her peace and quiet. All the children are in favor of doing 
so, but cannot persuade the mother. 

Grandfather Moyle was one of the least in pioneer pursuits; I 
never heard of his using a gun or going hunting, though that was 
one of the material aids in those days in providing meat for 
families. He did little farming himself. His boys did that and also 
the hunting, and did so easily as that was nearest the choice 
hunting grounds for bear, deer, sage and pine hens, and so on. 
Joe, the youngest, distinguished himself as the bear hunter of the 
family and killed quite a number. I think he frequently hunted 
alone and as I remember killed bears when alone. He was an 
exceptionally good shot and loved the sport. I went deer hunting 
with him, but bagged nothing much. I remember, however, how 
we shot across the little valley of Hamengog high up in the 
northeast mountains. We tracked the deer for miles on the steep 
mountainside frequently on snow, and once I lost my bearings and 
coasted down on the snow so fast that I could not get myself in a 
position to stop. I feared I might rush onto the rocks at the bottom 
of the snow, but I finally got my feet in position where they were 
lodged in the snow and stopped. We proceeded on our way, but 
neither got another shot. 

Like Joe, I loved to hunt. I had a fine muzzle-loading, double- 
barrel shotgun. That muzzle-loading gun was the only one in use 
when I commenced to shoot. I first had a flint lock. It cost little, 
but I killed meadow larks with it a few times. I would regard that 
now as a vandal’s act. I love so much to see and especially to hear 


Young Mormon 

them, hut then I did what others did and thought it real sport. I 
was about fifteen when Father got me that double-barrel shotgun. 

I was a big fellow for my age and loved a horse and a dog. I 
made my first investment in a dog when I was fifteen or sixteen. I 
paid ten dollars for a pure-bred Scotch retriever pup. He became 
a beautiful dog. When Father heard of the investment, he said, “A 
fool and his money parted.” No person of my acquaintance had 
paid that much for a dog. Common dogs were plentiful and pups 
were always given away, but I was stuck on having the best and 
most beautiful hunting dog. He was a choice dog naturally, but I 
spoiled him by whipping him for disobedience when the poor dog 
was not adequately informed what it was for except that he had 
attacked tame ducks and failed to realize the importance of the 
objection. I knew nothing of training a dog. I frequently went 
hunting with my horse and dog west of the Jordan River either for 
rabbits in the sagebrush or for ducks southwest of the city. 

When seventeen, I was five or six miles west of the city hunting 
with a group of boys who (except myself) seldom hunted, and most 
of them had to borrow guns. I had pasteboard wads for my gun 
and thought I heard the shot rattle in the barrel. Believing that the 
wadding had not been properly rammed down, I thought I would 
save the shot, so I raised my gun to let it run into my hand, but a 
limb or something caught the trigger and the powder exploded 
and carried away everything on my left first finger between its first 
joints but the inside skin. I stood in wonderment, and raising my 
hand was surprised to see the other two joints of the finger drop 
down on the back of my hand. Without experiencing any pain, 1 
shook my hand and the finger dangled in the air. When I realized 
what had happened, it pained me severely and bled freely. We 
bandaged it up as best we could, and the doctors in town cut it off 
at the hand, or unjointed it there. 5 

Reminiscences of a Stonecutter 

When Father built the two-story, rough-cut stone prison im- 
mediately behind the old city hall on East First South, the mayor 
of the city was Daniel H. Wells, second counselor to Brigham 
Young. He was one of the finest and best men of the Church and 

5 Memorandum dated Aug., Oct. 1941, Box 9, fd 6. 

Chapter 2 

the Rocky Mountains. None will question that. At that time I was 
old enough to carry to Father a warm dinner and was with the men 
as they ate, and 1 probably ate a part of Father’s. As the men ate 
their dinners, I remember seeing the mayor come out of the back 
door of City Flail, go down a few steps, and enter on the west side 
of the basement. Fie would remain there a short time and then 
return. I saw that repeated, for I remained often for hours. The 
men indicated its significance by saying with a smile and wink of 
the eye that it was the second or third time as the case might be. I 
learned the full meaning when I heard them say that the city’s 
liquor supply was kept there and that Squire Wells, as he was 
familiarly called, was fond of liquor. His complexion was of the 
rosy type and that, as a matter of fact, was distinctly visible on his 
well-developed nose, the size of which some were pleased to 
exaggerate. Nevertheless, I never heard of anyone saying he was 
intemperate. Whether or not he did gel one or more tastes of 
liquor in the basement is, of course, a matter of conjecture, but I 
gained that understanding and concluded that the squire did 
quietly indulge and did not feel that he was seriously violating the 
Word of Wisdom. 

I know my father, who would have given his life and all he had 
for his religion, did not think a drink of toddy or even straight 
whiskey was as serious as it is considered now. He did, however, 
struggle valiantly and more or less consistently, as many of the best 
churchmen did, to overcome the evil of drinking intoxicants. It 
was not approved, but many had a naturally strong desire for it as 
well as for tobacco. Father fought against both with a will and 
determination of a gladiator, but was too often victim rather than 
victor. His struggle and the struggle of his father (who was in the 
same boat) taught me all 1 learned concerning the liquor and 
tobacco habit. I resolved against it and strengthened my desire for 
my children to avoid both. 

I have two other memories of being there at the jail so 
frequently which have lingered on my mind. It was when I was not 
at school— summertime— and I must have been quite young. The 
building was up some height, and two stories were not very 
common in those days. They had a device that hoisted the layer of 
stone to its resting place. The tall mast was held erect by guy ropes 
fastened some distance away and tied with a bow knot. The men 


Young Mormon 

were working and Father was way up on the building. I must have 
been very young for I pulled on the rope and it yielded. The knot 
was loosed and the great mast fell and almost struck Father fatally. 
I will never forget that, for I was terribly frightened. Father was 
not paralyzed but it was serious. Father acted magnanimously. He 
could see, I presume, that I was suffering sufficiently. 13 

The second memory is small, but to me most interesting. I 
remember there being considerable talk over the fact that an 
ingenious feature of the structure was that the stones used in 
building the jail had a round cannon ball with a diameter of about 
an inch or an inch and a half in the joints of the center of each 
stone, which was put there so that if there was an attempt made to 
saw through the stone the saw would strike the iron ball, which 
would revolve and make impossible sawing the stone. Just why that 
should have attracted the attention it did, 1 do not know, but 
because of its notoriety I preserved one of those cannon balls that 
was taken from the jail and recently found it among my effects. 
That substantial stone structure is still standing. ' 

Working on the Temple Block 

When 1 was quite a large boy, Father had built a good reputa- 
tion as a building contractor. So Brigham Young called him on a 
mission (at first) to superintend the stonecutting for the Temple. 
Later, Brigham appointed him superintendent of the entire work 
of construction. Henry Grow was in charge of carpenter work 
which was not extensive. 6 7 8 9 * 11 This was sometime between the summer 
of 1872 when I started to cut stone on the Temple Block and 1877 
when Brigham Young died, and he officially called Father on a 
mission to work on the Temple and Father gave up his contracting 
business for that mission. 

6 Memorandum dated Sept., Nov.-Dee. 1943, Box 10, fd 3. 

7 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 2. See also memorandum dated Sept., Nov.- 
Dee. 1943, Box 10, fd 3. 

8 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 3. See Wallace Alan Raynor, “History of 
the Construction of the Salt Lake Temple,” M.S. thesis, Brigham Young University, 
1961; Don B. Colvin, “Quarrying Stone for the Salt Lake Temple,” M.A. thesis, 
Brigham Young University, 1959. 

9 Memorandum dated Oct. 1937, Box 9, fd 3. James Moyle indicated in his auto- 

biography that he first worked on the temple in 1871, worked elsewhere for a time, 

and then became superintendent of the stonecutting for the temple two or three 

Chapter 2 

Father also superintended the construction of the Assembly 
Hall on Temple Square. 10 I well remember Grandfather Moyle 
taking me there and attending with him the School of the Proph- 
ets. At the first meeting I remember very well Daniel H. Wells was 
the speaker. I enjoyed his address because it was short and because 
of his peculiar facial expressions. He had a peculiar movement of 
the eye and the mouth when he spoke. The other speaker was 
either Orson Pratt or Orson Hyde. He spoke much longer; there- 
fore, I did not enjoy it so much. I was just a little fellow. 11 I think I 
was not more than ten. It was held in the original Assembly Hall, 
located on the southwest corner of Temple Square and very near 
the sidewalk. You had to go down several steps to get into it. I 
thought the massive chandeliers in it were marvelous, made chiefly 
of a great mass of small glass prisms. They were somewhat similar 
to the ones in the White House in Washington. 

I first remember the Tabernacle when the carpenters were 
making the pipes for the great organ. They worked in front of the 
organ before the pulpits were erected. I remember one large pipe 
that a man could crawl through. I then attended the funeral of 
Heber C. Kimball there in June of 1868 before I was ten years old. 
The speakers were on a platform (in front of where the stand is 
now) with a cloth on it to improve the sound. Before the Taberna- 
cle was completed, there was an open air place of assembly called 
the Bowery, which was nothing but posts and brush over it, with 
crude seats. As I remember it, it was located south of the east end 
of the Tabernacle. 

In the old days, everybody attended church in the afternoon, 
and did so in the Tabernacle. 1J In those days and until recently, 
the two o’clock Tabernacle meeting on Sunday was the biggest 
event of the week for Latter-day Saints. The Sacrament of the 
Lord’s Supper was always served. As a young man, when it was our 
ward’s turn, I remember officiating in distributing or serving the 
sacrament to the members present. The meetings were always two 
hours or more long, as was the case in the ward meetings. If the 

years later. See Sessions, “Biographies and Reminiscences,” pp. 55-56. 

10 Memorandum dated Oct. 1937, Box 9, fd 3. 

11 Undated memorandum. Box 8, fd 2. 

12 Memorandum dated Oct. 1937, Box 9, fd 3. 


Young Mormon 

speakers did not occupy all the time, the president of the stake 
(who usually presided) saw to it that the time was not lost by 
occupying it himself. The speakers were called to the stand from 
the audience and delivered impromptu addresses as the Spirit 
directed, with no previous notice. The same rule was followed in 
all the local or ward meetings which were held at night. Strange to 
say, the meetings were well-attended, much better than now in 
both ward and Tabernacle. In the Tabernacle, as a rule, the 
speakers were fine, really worthwhile, and they dealt often with the 
prophecies, especially of the Bible, foretelling the future of the 
world, present conditions, and the early ending of this world with 
the millennial reign of the Savior. I would not have missed as a boy 
in my late teens the discourses of Orson Pratt for anything. I 
remember his sermons as being magnificent, and believe many of 
them will someday be honored and glorified. I often think I will 
read them and want to, but do not seem to find time. When it was 
advertised that Orson Pratt would preach in any ward, however far 
away, I attended no matter how far I had to walk. I lived at First 
South and Fifth West, so to go to the First Ward required a walk 
of more than three miles. To go to the Twenty-first Ward on the 
extreme northeast corner of the city would take a two-mile walk. 
But we thought nothing of walking; it was the only thing to do, 
especially to hear Orson Pratt. 1 ' 

In 1872 when I first worked on the Temple Block, the Temple 
was about level with Main Street on the east end, but the west end 
was much above the ground. The foundation and basement went 
down to quite a depth, I often played with boys in the basement. 
The stone in the basement was of a different color from the granite 
in the superstructure and did not come from the same locality. 

Henry Eccles of our Fifteenth Ward was the foreman of 
stonecutters prior to Father’s call. Moroni Thomas’s father was 
foreman between Eccles and Father for a year and possibly more. 
Truman Angell, an uncle of Richard W. Young, was architect and 
Richard himself was clerk in the office of the architect. The old 
stonecutters on the Block whom I remember best were Peter 
Gillespie, who at one time was Father’s partner in building opera- 

13 Memorandum dated May 1943, Box 10, fd 1. See T. Edgar Lyon, “Orson 
Pratt, Pioneer and Proselyter,” Utah Historical Quarterly 24 (1956): 261-73. 

Chapter 2 

dons; Eugene Fullmer, son of a Nauvoo Saint; William Stockdale, 
grandfather of our Senator Elbert D. Thomas; Joseph Dover, 
William Player, and William Barnes, of Nauvoo. Barnes worked on 
the Nauvoo Temple and told us many interesting things about it 
and the people there. Two others were Samuel Friday and Thomas 
Howells. H 

Father and his stonecutters spent their long lunch periods 
discussing all kinds of topics from theology to war. It was a real 
pioneer, tin-bucket luncheon club. The debates were often ex- 
tremely instructive and I enjoyed the heated debates. Most of the 
men knew their Bible and Church works of which there were then 
very few. It is surprising how much they knew of history and 
science. They had been converted in a most vital way and regarded 
their religion as they did life itself. Their philosophy of life would 
be appreciated even by men of real thought and broad knowledge. 
Most of them would have made their mark in the world under 
more favorable circumstances for they loved knowledge and the 
truth above all. They were typical of the splendid men who 
constituted the backbone and foundation stone of Mormon social 
life. They were as immovable in their faith and their own moral 
and religious foundations as the very granite itself. 1 ' 

There were many other stonecutters working on Temple 
Block, but they worked in other sheds and projects. There were 
long sheds covered with brush all around. Big oxen, the finest and 
largest raised, pulled large two-wheel carts and carried the rough 
stones in and the cut stones out to where they were dropped in 
rows in the yard outside. The stones all had painted on them in 
black letters marks which indicated exactly where they were to be 
placed in the building. The cart had a strong pole or bar on top of 
its tongue which was attached to the axle. It had a strong hook on 
it by which the cart could be raised perpendicularly. The cart then 
straddled the stone which usually weighed many tons, after which 
a chain was put around the stone, the pole pulled down with a 
rope, and the stone was raised. It would take days, possibly a week, 

14 Memorandum dated Oct. 1937, Box 9, fd 3. 

15 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 7. See Ephraim E. Ericksen, The Psychology 
cal and Ethical Aspects of Mormon Group Life (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 

Young Mormon 

to dress some of the stones and a big price was paid for them— $ 100 
or more for some. 1 think the stone steps in the Temple with noses 
were worth about $70 each. The nose was the delicate work and 
so stonecutters were paid much higher wages than carpenters. 
Many of the stones in the Temple required a veiy high degree of 
skill and care, especially the one stone on either side of the arch 
over the windows which came to an almost feather edge. You can 
see them from the ground in the large round windows. The granite 
was easily cracked, for it was not all one composition, but small 
pieces of quartz, feldspar, and mica which fell apart when jarred. 
The feather-edged part was cut last so that the jarring of the heavy 
work would not injure it. If a miss hit were made or a hit made too 
hard, it would destroy the job and a week’s work might (as 
occasionally occurred) be lost. Men were paid by the job and not 
by the clay. 16 

Whiskey in Zion 

The only business south of Second South was the city liquor 
store on the southwest corner of Main Street. It was a small, 
one-story, simple lumber structure, right on the corner. It would 
be considered a shack today. I have an imperfect recollection of 
the corner being called the White House. It was just large enough 
for the little liquor that they sold in the city. The significant fact 
was that it was the only place in which liquors could be legally 
sold. 1 ' 

I remember working as a boy stonecutting on the Temple 
Block and going more than once to the city liquor store with the 
gallon tin can (in which Father and I carried our lunch and 
evening meal to work) to buy a quart of whiskey for the men 
with whom I worked, including Father. I do not think I was 
permitted otherwise to participate, even though at fourteen I was 
tall and husky. I also went over to the Tithing Office in the fall 
and got a gallon of Dixie tithing wine for the same group, some 
of whom were Nauvoo Temple builders and all devoted Latter- 
day Saints. It is my recollection that I was permitted to enjoy 

16 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 7. 

17 Memorandum dated Sept., Nov.-Dee. 1943, Box 10, fd 3. See Philip Ray Ro- 
gers, “Liquor Control in the State of Utah,” M.S. thesis, University of Utah, 1940. 

Chapter 2 

some of the wine. I liked it; the rest loved it. Some of the old 
chappies much preferred the scotch, but in those days no scotch 
came to Utah for ordinary folks so far as I remember. It was real 
hard Valley Tan liquor that they drank, and not the most expen- 
sive kind, but for those days good whiskey. As the railroad then 
operated I suppose there was some scotch to be had and the 
stonecutters doubtlessly got it, especially fine old Scotsmen like 
Peter Gillespie, Father’s sometime partner . 18 

Speaking of liquor, one of the most famous bartenders in the 
valley was Harry Haines, my old and best district school teacher. 
He married the apostate Bishop Andrew Cahoon’s daughter. 
Cahoon was bishop of Murray and a fine old man. He was a 
headstrong character, a surveyor by trade, and in many respects a 
useful citizen and father of a large polygamous family. Even 
Haines, while violently anti-Mormon, admitted to me that the 
Church possessed an unusual number of outstandingly strong 
leading characters like Bishop Cahoon who left their impress on 
their families and the communities in which they lived. Haines 
would not admit that we were Israelites, one of a city and two of a 
family who had gathered in Zion, but he saw clearly that it would 
be difficult to find another community of as wide extent, who 
possessed as many upstanding and outstandingly strong men with 
personalities and families such as that of Andrew Cahoon of 
Murray. He, of course, knew Cahoon and his families. Haines 
graduated from school teacher to the saloon keeper of Murray. 
His home is still standing now in the center of Murray on State 
Street. When he first went there it was just a village. The place was 
noted in the early days as a place where whiskey could be had more 
easily than anywhere else . 19 

“Whiskey” Morton, another apostate of some note in Salt Lake 
City, operated the municipal liquor store. William Margetts, the 
brother of Phil, the popular comedian of the Salt Lake Theater, 
operated what I believe was the only brewery in the city. It was 
located across the street north of the Sixteenth Ward Square, now 
the site of West High School. Phil later operated a saloon on First 

18 Memorandum dated Sept., Nov.-Dee. 1943, Box 10, id 3. 

19 Memorandum dated May 1943, Box 10, fd 1. See Clinton B. Ahlbert, “A His- 
tory of Murray to 1905,” M.S. thesis, Brigham Young University, 1959. 

Young Mormon 

South east of West Temple and not far west of Dinwoodey Furni- 
ture Store. Phil’s saloon was noted, in my mind at least, for the 
group of interesting, convivial, well-known Mormon patrons who 
met with Phil by instinct, common interest, mutual attraction, or 
otherwise in the upper room of his two-story beer parlor and there 
very frequently remained until it was too late for them to gel home 
unaided. They even enjoyed good scotch. At least one of them was 
a Scot and even after he became an outstanding, frequent, and 
popular Tabernacle speaker, bis language showed something of 
his origin or native land/" 

In that little group who regularly patronized Phil Margett’s 
saloon were three men from the office of President Young. (There 
were others, but 1 was never present or saw them enter.) The first 
of these was the treasurer of the Church, James Jack, or “JimJack,” 
as he was always called. He imbibed so thoroughly that he never 
got over the habit, though he remained as treasurer until his death, 
notwithstanding the new order in the Church so thoroughly and 
completely in favor of temperance. The second was David McKen- 
zie, who was a clerk in Brigham’s office and later became a notable 
and splendid Tabernacle preacher. He was withal an excellent man 
whom I admired and enjoyed, but like my father never survived 
the love of good whiskey or beer. The third member of the trio 
from the Church Office was Horace Whitney, who like McKenzie, 
was until death a clerk in the President’s office and earned his 
living as such. Whitney was the father of Horace Whitney, the 
theatrical play writer of the Deseret News and long-time secretary of 
the Utah-Idaho Sugar Company. He often said to me, “Jim, you 
stick to sheep and wool and 1 with sugar and we will get on all 
right.” His older brother, Orson F., became still more distin- 
guished, and was best known as Bishop Whitney, apostle, poet, 
and historian.' 1 

The group to which Father belonged more intimately were 
builders such as William Folsom, the most prominent architect of 

20 Memorandum dated May 1943, Box 10, fd 1. Reference is to David McKen- 
zie. See paragraph below. 

21 Memorandum dated May 1943, Box 10, fd 1. See also undated memoran- 
dum, Box 8, fd 2. Whitney’s comment referred to Moyle’s involvement in the Deseret 
Livestock Company. 

Chapter 2 

the time and father of Amelia, a favorite wife of Brigham Young. 
Another was a blacksmith who was very popular with the builders 
and especially Father and Folsom. Another intimate with the first 
three and in the same class as to weakness for liquor, was Bishop 
John Sharp of the Twentieth Ward, a partner of Brigham Young 
in large contracts for the building of the original Union Pacific 
Railroad and a director of the company until his death. They were 
all sterling stalwarts so far as manhood, virtue, integrity, and 
devotion to Deity were concerned, and everyone of them left fine 
families of which they were proud and the children proud of their 
fathers. The weakness for a “wee bit” (as the Scotsmen called it) 
was their besetting sin which they all deplored and fought against, 
but that they were all choice men there is no question. And that 
they were a real part of the factors that have made for Mormon 
stability in all other particulars there is no question. It was simply 
Father’s one weakness against which he waged a never-ending 
battle, although he overcame entirely his love of tobacco. 22 

I failed to say in connection with Phil Margetts, the leading 
Salt Lake Theater comedian and beer dispenser, and “Whiskey” 
Mort on, that they left fine families, some of which I knew not only 
well, but most favorably. Their business, however, did not promote 
their advancement in the Church, which was the most of all 
important factors in the community. 

The city liquor business, however, was not only legitimate, but 
was regarded as somewhat of a necessity. Liquor, in those days, 
was a needed stimulant and pretty much everybody, so far as 1 
know, considered it good for colds and snake biles, and a good 
poison antidote. There were other “sins” which were considered 
to be much more grievous than drinking. For example, to sell 
buttermilk in those days was next to criminal. Neighbors often 
treated each other to buttermilk when they made butter and 
occasionally gave some to the unfortunate. I well remember a 
Brother Johnson, an otherwise excellent man and father of a very 
commendable family, who lowered his social standing by selling 
buttermilk to overlanders on their way to California. For that 
somewhat grave act he was dubbed Buttermilk Johnson. 23 

22 Memorandum dated May 1943, Box 10, fd 1. 

23 Memorandum dated Sept., Nov.-Dee. 1943, Box 10, fd 3. 


Young Mormon 

On the Trail of the Iron Horse 

When I was fifteen, 1 worked the summer at the Temple. At 
sixteen I spent the summer cutting stone for a culvert at the big 
trestle (now a fill) about two or three miles west of Wahsatch 
Station (near the Wyoming border) on the Union Pacific Rail- 
road. I worked with Jack Sheriff and John Hislop. Due to some 
trouble (I have forgotten what), we struck, and with an old man 
we quit and went down the canyon in a wagon. We slept in the 
wagon box at Morgan with the old man. He was drunk, and we 
had quite a time. 

That next winter, and I think the next, I attended school in the 
Fifteenth Ward under my splendid teacher, Gentile Harry Haines, 
later of Murray. He was my best teacher. He inspired me with a 
desire to learn and devoted his personal attention to me in school 
and out. It was my first real progress in school, and started me on 
the course I ever after pursued devotedly, and determinedly. I will 
say more about that later. During my seventeenth and eighteenth 
summers, Father was employed by Union Pacific to build stone 
piers and abutments on the Bitter Creek in Wyoming, and I 
worked under him at the quarry in Weber Canyon at Devil’s Slide 
and later at the bridges on Bitter Creek about six or seven miles 
east of Green River. It was at this time that I first came in contact 
with oil shale. It was getting cold in the fall and we made a fire on 
the shale we had excavated in laying the foundation for the bridge 
abutments, and to our surprise the shale under the fire burned as 
soon as thoroughly dried. I have often wondered if this shale 
covered richer oil bearing structures. Here we lived in a box car 
with bunks, did our own washing, and had a real pioneer railroad 
experience.' 1 

Very soon after the Union Pacific Railroad entered the Salt 
Lake Valley, its termination was at Llinlah, about seven or eight 
miles southeast of Ogden. At the same time, the terminus of the 
old Central Pacific was at Corinne, which was also created by the 
advent of the railroad. The terminus of each road remained at 
those points until an agreement between them was reached as to 
where the junction or joint terminus should be. In the meantime, 

24 Undated memorandum. Box 8, fd 2. Moyle would take great interest in later 
excitement about the possibilities of oil shale development. 

Chapter 2 

Uintah and Corinne suddenly sprang into existence and became 
thriving and prosperous business centers. 25 

In 1869, I was about eleven years old. Uncle Henry Moyle, 
living in Alpine, needed a wagon, so he drove his team of horses 
to Salt Lake City. In those days many used slow-going oxen for like 
purposes. He picked me up and I accompanied him to Uintah to 
buy the wagon. We spent the day in making the trip to the bench 
south of Uintah and above Kaysville, or where Layton is now. It 
was not then in existence, as I remember. We camped there on the 
plateau south of the depression made by the Weber River. We had 
followed a well-travelled road, but the roads then were much as 
nature provided, for the land was disturbed only by wagon travel. 
The taxes spent on the roads consisted of a head tax on able-bodied 
males over a given age. It required them to do one or two days’ 
work on the road per year or pay so much for someone else to do 
it. Thus we had wearily and slowly plodded on, with rocks in the 
road causing plenty of bumps and jolts. It was my farthest trip from 
home, though it was about the same distance to Alpine from Salt 
Lake City; I had frequently, maybe twice a year, made the trip to 
Alpine to see my grandparents and uncles. 

When night came, we made our bed in the open wagon box, 
and I slept gloriously. In the morning, after the horses were fed 
and our breakfast was over, we were on our way and soon came in 
sight of the mouth of the Weber Canyon, and not long after as we 
approached the Weber River Valley I could see in the distance 
Uintah. There I saw the marvelous sight of the real “iron horse” 
of which I had heard so much and had come so far to see. It was 
a train just emerging from the canyon winding its way down. In 
constructing the road, haste and mileage had been the watchword, 
so they did not stop to remove hills when it could be avoided. The 
iron horse and train were too far away to be seen very distinctly in 
detail, but I marveled at it. We hastened across the narrow valley 
and reached Uintah soon after the train arrived. It was still stand- 

25 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 4. See Brigham D. Madsen and Betty M. 
Madsen, “Corinne, the Fair: Gateway to Montana Mines,” Utah Historical Quarterly 37 
(Winter 1969): 102-23; Reeder, “Utah’s Railroads,” pp. 58-64; Richard C. Roberts and 
Richard W. Sadler, Ogden: Junction City (Northridge, CA: Windsor Publications, 1985). 
pp. 31-44. 


Young Mormon 

ing with a volume of smoke coming from the stack, and occasion- 
ally steam gushing out. My eyes were absorbed with the engine, 
the bright trimmings, cow catcher, great wheels, smoke stack 
(which was like a real chimney such as every building had then), 
the tender loaded with coal. Its immense size fascinated me, but 
now it would be insignificantly small and incomparable with even 
the engines of twenty-five years ago, to say nothing of the present. 
I remember also the great rush of business and the throng of 
people near the railroad terminus in tents and shacks hastily 
erected to shelter goods and people. 

It was January 1870 when the Utah Central was completed to 
Salt Lake City. I was present when the first train came puffing into 
the station at the southeast corner of South Temple and Third 
West, which was only three and a half blocks from my home. That 
was a great event in the history of Salt Lake City and the first sight 
many had of a railroad train. 211 

We boys were often present to see the trains arrive, and 
enjoyed especially the loud calls and competition of the hotel 
runners, as we called them, seeking guests and passengers for the 
hack drivers. They were always eager for the business of strangers, 
as ready cash for a ride was scarce. People then generally walked 
everywhere, excepting the few who had horses. There was not 
much demand then for carriages, although hotel buses soon came 
into use. 

I think the only hotels in 1870 were the old Salt Lake House, 
a lumber structure as I remember about where the Tribune 
Building is now on Main Street, and the Townsend House, a large 
(for those days) two-story adobe on the northeast corner of West 
Temple and First South Streets. The Clift House, a two-story adobe 
or brick, may have been where the Clift Building is now at Main 
and Third South. Later came the three-story, brick Walker House 
facing east on Main Street about the center of the block between 
Second and Third South Streets. While the Townsend House was 
comfortable and popular, the Walker House became the leading 
hotel until the Cullen was built much later. The Cullen was the 

26 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 4. See Gustive O. Larson, “Building the 
Utah Central,” Improvement Era 28 (Jan. 1925): 217-27. 

Chapter 2 

first high-rise building erected in the city and it marked a distinct 
advance in Salt Lake City growth. J ' 

My Education in Early Utah 

When the history of pioneer Utah is written, as it will be sooner 
or later by an impartial, broad-minded historian, it will reveal some 
striking paradoxes, but the ultimate decision will be that there was 
therein, as there has been throughout the history of our American 
civilization, a divinity shaping its ends. There will be more great 
minds like that of Professor Thomas Nixon Carver of Harvard who 
will say that Pioneer Utah is one of the few choice fields for the 
study of empire building. It is a significant fact that the pioneers 
were located in the center of the intermountain west on what was 
designated on the maps of the time as the Great American Desert, 
and that Pioneer Utah is the most significant event so far in the 
history of that vast section of the United States. 

Who can now tell what part the University of Deseret played 
in the great drama, and just why there was attracted to it a simple, 
obscure character like Dr. John R. Park, a physician who was 
promoted from school teacher in the obscure village in the south- 
east corner of Salt Lake County to the presidency of the first 
university west of the Mississippi River? Who can unfold to our 
view the magnitude of the splendid work he did and the ramifica- 
tions of the beneficent influence he wielded over the lives of so 
many of the generation who came in contact with him? How far 
was he and the university he loved responsible for the accomplish- 
ments of the thousands who came within the realm of his and its 

What a revelation it was to me when I came to use the library 
in the south end of the old Deseret Hospital Building in 1877, 
almost seventy years ago, and was informed that most of those 
books were those of Dr. Park, who so quietly and modestly moved 
within that community. I had never seen anything to compare with 
it. It was my first sight of a real library. My father loved books, and 

27 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 4. 

2K Undated memorandum. Box 9, fd 2. See Ralph V. Chamberlin, The University 
of Utah: A History of Its First Hundred Years, 1850-1950 (Salt Lake City: University of 
Utah Press, 1960), pp. 61-120, for a survey of the Park period. 


Young Mormon 

had as many of them as any of our neighbors, but not exceeding 
fifty, if that many. And few had more in Utah outside that library 
Dr. Park gave to the university. I never heard of Dr. Park having 
other worldly possessions. How choice and rare a character he was. 
It is thus to my school teachers, the Deseret University, and Dr. 
Park that I attribute my opportunity for mental development and 
elevation from the humble walks of a west-side clodhopper to the 
wider fields of growth and progress.”' 

My primary education was in the Church district schools. 
Everything was taught in one room— at first by one teacher— in the 
district schools. Later, as the schools became larger, there was an 
assistant, generally a woman. At some times there was an addi- 
tional room provided for the assistant.” 

1 very well remember that we were graded by the progress we 
made in our McGuffey First, Second, and Third Readers, Ray’s 
Arithmetic, and Pinnios’ Grammar. 1 was not a particularly apt 
student and I think I started in at about the same place each year 
for several years. Of course, there were only two or three classes. 
I remember having studied addition, subtraction, and division, 
and then being put in a high class; the same with the McGuffey 
Readers. The Pinnios’ grammar system was obnoxious to me. 
When I went to the university, Dr. Park made grammar interesting 
with what was known as the Clark diagramming system, in which 
the structure of the sentence was boxed— the nominator or subject 
first, the predicate or moving force second, and the object or 

Undated memorandum, Box 9, fd 2. On September 15, 1876, Deseret Univer- 
sity moved from the Council House to the old “Academy Building” in the Seven- 
teenth Ward. This was a long, two-story, adobe building that stood on the corner of 
First North and Second West across from the Sixteenth Ward (or Union) Square, now 
the site of West High School. See Chamberlin, University of Utah, p. 108. The building 
became the Deseret Hospital in 1884 after the university moved to a new building on 
Union Square. The hospital continued to function in the old structure until 1905. See 
ibid., p. 126; Andrew Jenson, Encyclopedic History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- 
day Saints (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1941), pp. 184-85. 

30 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 2. See C. Merrill Hough, “Two School Sys- 
tems in Conflict: 1867-1890,” Utah Historical Quarterly 28 (1960): 13-28; Laverne C. 
Bane, “The Development of Education in Utah, 1870-1896,” Ed.D. diss., Stanford Uni- 
versity, 1940; M. Lynn Bennion, “The Origin, Growth and Extension of the Educa- 
tional Program of the Mormon Church in Utah,” Ph.D. diss., University of California, 
Berkeley, 1935. 


Chapter 2 

failure to have an object third, with the prepositions and subordi- 
nate phrases boxed off underneath the three main divisions of the 
sentence. That was comparatively easy and interesting. " 

Harry Haines’s success as a teacher was due largely to the inspi- 
ration he instilled into his pupils by relating such illustrations as 
that of learning to articulate clearly in the face of natural impedi- 
ments such as Demosthenes suffered. He persisted in trying to 
speak with pebbles in his mouth to overcome his natural impedi- 
ment, and made a success thereby. In spite of Harry Haines giving 
up teaching for the more lucrative business of bartending in Mur- 
ray, he made good at that and came to be known as the “Mayor of 
Murray,” though he never held the office or any public office. I 
have always honored him for what he did for me, and Dr. John R. 
Park likewise, though I was not such a favorite with him. He had 
too many, I presume, more promising. But I was surprised later to 
discover that the more precocious made so little progress later. 12 

I think Father’s chief purpose in having me go to the university 
was to break up my association with some of the ward boys who 
were not very desirable. After one year at the university I spent 
more time in district school, then a year at Morgan’s College on 
First South between West Temple and Second West. That was 
especially notable for its commercial course, which I am sorrv I did 
not take.” 

In the fall of 1877 I became a university student again in the 
old adobe Deseret Hospital Building across from the Sixteenth 
Ward Square. The old two-stoiy building had been used as a 
hospital, and after the university moved again, the building was 
used as a knitting factory. The entrance was at the center of the 
building on First West and on the south side of the entrance was 
a classroom and beyond that the library, which as I mentioned 
consisted chiefly of the books Dr. Park had accumulated and had 
given to the university. On the north side of the entrance were one 
or two more classrooms. The president had his office on the north 
side of the upstairs. On the south side of the upstairs was the main 

31 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 2. 

32 Memorandum dated Sept. 1945, Box 13, fd 3. 

33 Memorandum dated Feb. 1935, Box 9, fd 3. See also undated memorandum, 
Box 9, fd 2. 


Young Mormon 

classroom where pretty much all of the normal school courses were 
taught. The normal department was the principal part of the 
university. In the two years ending in the spring of 1879, when 1 
was twenty years of age, I completed the normal course and what 
was known as the course in mathematics. This consisted of a 
one-year course in algebra, geometry, trigonometry, measuration, 
and survey. We spent three or four days in actual surveying under 
Professor Joseph B. Toronto. He taught all of those studies, as well 
as Greek and Latin. 1 spent part of a year studying Caesar’s wars 
and spent one quarter on Greek. Both were extremely difficult 
studies for me, particularly the Greek, which did not appeal to me 
at all, so I soon gave it up. I was interested in Latin, however, 
because I understood it was very desirable for a lawyer. I also took 
the course then given in mineralogy under Dr. Joseph T. 
Kingsbury. I enjoyed it immensely and stood higher in it than 
probably anyone else.’ 1 

When fifteen, I had attended the Deseret University, then held 
in the Council House where the Deseret News Building now stands 
at the corner of Main and South Temple Streets. The building, a 
two-story structure, was set back about ten or fifteen feet from the 
street and the property was surrounded by a picket fence, with 
nothing but mother earth for a sidewalk, although there might 
possibly have been some gravel on it. The Main Street sidewalk 
was the popular place for our athletics, which consisted mostly of 
jumping, as I remember.' 1 

I was not a regular university student. The institution then 
taught spelling, grammar, arithmetic, possibly geography, and 
what was then called rhetoric. Professor Park, the president of the 
institution, taught all or most of these classes. Professors Francis 
M. Bishop, Joseph L. Rawlins, Joseph B. Toronto, and Joseph F. 
Kingsbury were the only other teachers I now recall. 11 ’ 

34 Undated memorandum, Box 9, fd 2. See also memorandum dated Feb. 1935, 
Box 9, fd 3; n28 above. See additionally the diagram of the university facilities in the 
“Union Academy Building” in Chamberlin, University of Utah, p. 99. 

35 Memorandum dated Feb. 1935, Box 9, fd 3. Moyle later became famous with 
his aptitude for “jumping.” In the 1930s he made news by outjumping his employees 
in the Bureau of Customs even though he was nearly eighty. For a survey of the Uni- 
versity of Deseret in the Council House, see Chamberlin, University of Utah, pp. 16-126. 

36 Memorandum dated Feb. 1935, Box 9, fd 3. Rawlins resigned from the fac- 

Chaptkr 2 

A Diffident Young Man in Utah Society 

The most severe affliction that hindered me throughout my 
education was bashfulness. My social timidity was so great that in 
the presence of girls I might as well have been paralyzed. When 
old enough to notice the girls and admire them in the district 
school, I would walk around the block rather than walk alone with 
a girl, especially one with whom I would like to make a hit. I had 
no confidence in myself around girls, and yet with the boys I was 
one of the loudest and roughest. 1 thoroughly enjoyed roughhous- 
ing with them. But, oh how meek and quiet and docile I was in the 
presence of girls. For example, no matter how hard I studied even 
in college, I never made extra good recitations, because I was so 
conscious of my weakness and timidity. I was ambitious, however, 
and I determined to make something of myself and to overcome 
my backwardness.” 

No girl or woman ever refused to accept my invitation to 
accompany me anywhere, but I have to admit that they had very 
rare opportunities to do so. That was the one great misfortune of 
my youth; I fully realized it and was humiliated by it. I was so 
extremely shy that it required more courage than I had even to be 
around girls. I was afraid that I would be so dumb and make such 
a bad impression that it would make my bashfulness even worse. 
I contented myself with the belief that I would eventually overcome 
my great weakness and would achieve that which would give me 
social standing and confidence in myself. 

One of the best homes socially in the territory was that of 
Captain William H. Hooper, delegate to Congress and successful 
businessman. He had four charming daughters, all dark brunettes. 
The captain was a real Southern gentleman who had drifted west 
after being a captain on a Mississippi riverboat. He joined the 
Church and married an attractive, fine, motherly Mormon girl. 
Though never a very active churchman, he was a highly respected 
citizen. There was an air of refinement about the entire household 

ulty in 1875 and was succeeded by Toronto. Park, Bishop, and Toronto composed the 
entire faculty until 1877 when Kingsbury took Bishop’s place in the “Famous Faculty 
Triumvirate.” See Chamberlin, University of Utah, pp. 107-108. 

37 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 2. Moyle often recalled his youthful “diffi- 
dence,” an archaic term meaning timidity or shyness. 


Young Mormon 

that greatly distinguished it. There were, however, few elaborate 
or expensive dinners given there. 

I visited the Hooper home more than any other, not because 
I had fallen in love with either of the girls, but because they were 
all socially attractive and very generally admired. Mary, the eldest, 
had married the oldest son of William Jennings, and was a social 
leader with a very attractive home. The next daughter, Hattie, was 
nearest my age and very charming. Notwithstanding the social 
standing of the girls and family, they were naturally agreeable and 
unassuming and charming in their conduct toward all (irrespective 
of social standing or favor) whom they cared to entertain. 

Nothing can illustrate better what I would like to describe in 
them all than my experience with Hattie. I met her soon after 1 
emerged one day from the east gate of the Temple Block in my 
working clothes with more or less of the stonecutter’s dust on me, 
and my face was probably grimy. I was just a little embarrassed, for 
I looked at my worst, but to my great relief she was just as friendly 
and as sociable as she could be and tried to make me feel comfort- 
able with her at once. This was in striking contrast to another 
meeting not far from the same place with a young lady of much 
less prominence who hardly recognized me as she passed me with 
her head high. 

Hattie was very popular with all and especially with that 
outstanding West Pointer, Willard Young, whom she later mar- 
ried. He was a real success in the Army and distinguished himself 
as the army engineer who had charge of building the locks at The 
Dalles on the Columbia River. Unfortunately, he left the Army to 
become active in Church work where he failed as a leader. He was 
so trained and fitted for the Army that his education seemed to 
hinder rather than to help him in civilian life. His wife was 
disgusted with the change to civilian life and their home was not 
a happy one. There was no open rupture, but their harmony and 
happiness was noticeably disturbed. 

Libby, the next in age, was quite as popular and clever. I greatly 
admired both, but did not fall in love with cither. While on my 
mission I corresponded with both and greatly valued the family, 
because it was so educationally and socially refining to associate 
with them. Neither Mother nor Father had any glimpse into such 
social relations. That was the case with all the Fifteenth Warders, 

Chapter 2 

with the possible exceptions of the bishop, General Robert T. 
Burton’s first family, and the family of John Clark, who all had very 
nice and well-furnished homes. 

Elias Morris, later bishop of the Fifteenth Ward, was in my 
father’s class, though he was more prominent later after Father’s 
death. He also had two families and the struggle for necessities 
stood in the way of much luxury. The homes of the General 
Authorities of the Church were more or less the same, even when 
(as in Brigham Young’s case) they were well off. Numerous families 
prevented each from having very much luxury, because each wife 
had to be kept on a common parity with no special favors to any 
one. That rule very generally prevailed. Hence the polygamous 
homes could not compare with the Jenningses or Hoopers. It was 
for that reason— so he would have a place fitted especially for large 
and dignified entertainments, as well as to please his last love— that 
Brigham Young built the Amelia Palace.'" 

Clarissa Young had appealed to me more than any other girl 
I met in school. Clint, as everyone called her, had everything I 
lacked— family distinction, a father almost worshipped by his peo- 
ple as a great leader, a home of luxury, and social distinction. That, 
however, did not count so much to me as the fact that she was the 
very embodiment of that characteristic (which I lacked so com- 
pletely) of being at home anywhere with anyone, high or low. She 
was as natural and attractive to me as the flowers that grow, bloom, 
and flourish in the surrounding hills. She would accost and chat 
with Professor Joseph B. Toronto as if he were one of her most 
intimate chums, when all the other girls felt they could not reach 
him with a ten-foot pole. He too was very reserved and diffident 
then. This was before he became openly interested in anything but 
his work in teaching. He was almost as reserved as Professor 
Kingsbury before he received his doctorate and became a recog- 
nized leader in his vocation. But Clint always made me feel at home 
in a group of girls. When in a group of girls I thought she singled 
me out and went out of her way to make me feel comfortable. 

38 Memorandum dated May 1944, Box 10, fd 6. Also known as the Gardo 
House, the Amelia Palace was named for Harriett Amelia Folsom Young, Brigham’s 
“last love.” Originally intended as an official residence for the president of the 
church, only John Taylor lived there and for a short time. 

Young Mormon 

On St. Valentine’s Day at school (we all sat in one room), she 
wrote a poetic valentine of four or five verses, and Frank J. Cannon 
delivered it to me in the schoolroom, which gave me the thrill of 
my life; I felt elevated beyond measure. Before leaving my desk, 
Frank said, “If you do not follow that up, you are a damned fool.” 
Notwithstanding all that, I very rarely called on Clint, and never 
asked her to go anywhere with me for the same reason that I did 
not court the Hooper girls. For another thing, I knew intuitively 
that John Spencer was serious in his devotion to Clint. The 
relationship between the two was clear. John was clever and 
dramatic and entertaining, both in voice and action. He was a 
first-class singer and a coming dramatic actor of attractive appear- 
ance and distinguished family. If I interfered and got anywhere it 
would only have disrupted a lovely and manifestly congenial 
relationship. I also felt that if I had a chance, I would have to give 
up my very life’s ambition, because I could only offer the surround- 
ings of a stonecutter or building contractor in a small sphere, for 
such it was then. She was too good for me to lower that much. So 
I merely kept up (until her recent death) a very cordial friendship 
I have always greatly valued. In fact, I have never valued a lady’s 
acquaintance more, excepting that of my wife. 

If I needed anything concerning Clint to confirm my conclu- 
sion that I could not marry until I was established in a law practice, 
it was her statement to a bunch of us at school that she had never 
done any cooking or kitchen work even down to setting a table. 39 

My Determination and Ambition 

I was extremely bashful, a real case. Yet I lacked nothing in 
ambition and determination to overcome it and outstrip my 
apparently more-favored associates who had no social impedi- 
ments. All my life, I told myself that 1 would make the goal. 
Although my surroundings socially, financially, and even reli- 
giously were against me, I determined to be a lawyer because the 
field was open so far as Mormon lawyers were concerned. Even 
the sons of the religious elite did not enter that field. In all the 
other fields of intellectual ambition, I was handicapped, because I 
was in competition with the elites. For years I was too modest to 

39 Undated memorandum. Box 8, fd 4. 

Chapter 2 

disclose my ambition, except to my father and an intimate friend, 
and then only under a vow of secrecy. I did not know how it was 
to be accomplished. In a general way, it was my big ambition to 
achieve success in my chosen profession, first so that I might live 
comfortably and provide my family with the advantages I did not 
enjoy. In fact, I did not know what the law profession was all about, 
except that lawyers were well-paid and were potent factors in the 
world, and it was the best stepping stone to public life, honor, and 
power, especially for the poor man. But 1 did have also a great 
ambition for the welfare of my family and of our downtrodden 
and abused people, to meet successfully their enemies. 1 knew of 
no one from our part of the community in which I lived that had 
ever intimated even an ambition for anything of the kind."’ 

I always loved animals, especially dogs and horses. When 1 was 
fourteen, my father gave me a well-bred, three-year-old colt, which 
we kept for many years first as my riding pony and later to pull a 
cart or buggy. I always wanted a farm (Father did also), and to raise 
fine horses; one of my boyhood ambitions was to be a rancher. At 
another time, when the prospect of going east to school was bad, 
I thought of becoming a machinist, though I was not particularly 
mechanical. I did not want to be a clerk in a store, because it 
seemed sissy to me and better fitted for the feminine dandy, which 
I was not and despised. In those days, there was practically nothing 
for a young fellow to do but farm, ranch, work in a store or shop, 
drive teams, be a common laborer, or ordinary mechanic. There 
was some mining, but our people did not engage in that with few 
exceptions. We were to be home makers, community-builders, 
preachers of the Gospel, raisers of large families, and builders of 
the Kingdom of God. Mining was mostly prospecting, which meant 
being wanderers, living isolated in cabins in the mountains, or 
living in mining camps where saloons, gambling, brothels, shoot- 
ing, murder, immorality, and drunkenness were the chief sources 
of entertainment. Therefore mining was not the place for a Lat- 
ter-day Saint. There was much of truth and wisdom in that teach- 
ing. Good men, however, could live in such places, and finally the 
prevailing sentiment in mining camps came to be moral and 

40 Memorandum dated Dec. 1934, Box 9, fd 3. See also undated memorandum, 
Box 8, fd 4. 


Young Mormon 

Christian rather than the opposite. That is very distinctly the case 



Brigham Young had good lawyers, and I always wanted to be 
of service to my people, so it seemed to me that through law I could 
accomplish much. But again, that was only a part of it. At that age 
I really thought that the law was simply the greatest field that was 
open to such poor boys as Abraham Lincoln and James Henry 
Moyle. I did believe, however, that if I equipped myself well I could 
be of real use to my people as well as myself and family. In 
conclusion, the law was the great field that the Mormons did not 
enter and in which the bluebloocls of the Church could have no 
advantage over me. I do not know what caused Alfales Young or 
Bruce Taylor to become lawyers, but those were my reasons. 1 ' 

The Mormon-Gentile Contest 

My hatred for religious persecution was promoted consider- 
ably by the vivid and impressive testimonies borne every Sabbath 
by Saints from foreign lands as well as those who had lived through 
the “wrongs of Missouri and Illinois.” It was not uncommon to 
hear added to these testimonies solemn oaths of vengeance which 
in turn gave rise to the talk about Mormon avengers and Danites 
and so on as depicted by the apostates. But there can be lit tle doubt 
that there was truth in the claim that some Saints violated God’s 
law of “vengeance is mine” by promising to take revenge on the 
unrighteous persecutors of the Church. It was that kind of atmos- 
phere in which I grew up, and I learned a hatred for persecution 
and even a certain desire for revenge. 1 ' 

Our neighbors in the Fifteenth Ward were all English, Welsh, 
and Scottish, or at least all of the heads of families in my early 
childhood were from Great Britain and the United States north of 
the Mason-Dixon line. There were no Scandinavians or Southern- 
ers among my earliest recollections. All of them were devout 
Latter-day Saints who had given up home, family, and country for 
religion and had suffered persecution for their beliefs. Conse- 

41 Memorandum dated Dec. 1934, Box 9, fd 3. See also undated memorandum, 
Box 8, fd 4. See Leonard [. Arrington, “Abundance from the Earth: The Beginnings 
of Commercial Mining in Utah,” Utah Historical Quarterly 31 (1963): 192-219. 

42 Memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd 2. 

43 Memorandum dated May 1944, Box 10, fd 6. 

Chapter 2 

quently, what was of the greatest influence in my young life was 
the collective testimony they bore of the divinity of Morntonism. 
They realistically related their experiences of being repudiated by 
parents, brothers, and sisters, of losing caste socially, and of 
marvelous dreams and healings by faith and obedience to Gospel 
law. Their stories of deliverance from physical persecution and 
actual sufferings thrilled my soul. The testimonies were related in 
the Sunday night meetings and Thursday afternoon (fast day) 
testimony meetings. I witnessed much of the latter when I became 
a deacon and as such had to clean and heat the room for those 
meetings. 11 

While imbibing all of this rhetoric, I heard Republican Gover- 
nor George L. Woods say there was enough wood in the mountains 
to build gallows on which to hang all the Mormons. I do not 
remember the fact but I think Woods was applauded for that 
speech. I had heard my father read what was said in Congress 
earlier, when the Mormon issue was before it. The Democrats 
always seemed to speak on their right to govern themselves, and 
that had thrilled and stirred my soul. 1 ’ 

In addition to the Governor Woods incident, I witnessed 
United States deputy marshals in the late afternoon of the election 
day in August 1874, come by force and take the ballot boxes from 
the old City Hall with the street in front jammed with people. I 
followed them down to Main Street, then down that street with 
such a crowd that they were forced into the entrance of ZCMI drug 
store to keep on their feet and get another start down the street. 
I was next to them most of the way and ready to follow the lead of 
any friend of the Mormons. I wanted to see the boxes taken from 
them to prevent their stuffing the boxes with fraudulent votes, 
which I believed to be their objective. I am not sure but I think 
that was when one of the tails of Mayor Wells’s Prince Albert coat 
was pulled off as he tried to get through the crowd into the 
entrance of City Hall. He got in and came out on the balcony above 
to command that the peace be preserved. I believe that was the 
election in which his command was followed by a line of policemen 

44 Memorandum dated Jan. 1945, Box 12, fd 1. 

45 Memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd 2. This Woods speech incident 
took place sometime in 1873. See Evans manuscript, Box 17, fd 6. 


Young Mormon 

coming out and battering the heads of the offending intruders with 
their big billy clubs; N. V. Jones, a tall special deputy, was in the 
first rank and cracked down on the head of a prominent and 
offensive “Liberal.” He was indicted for attempting to murder him. 
He did put him out of business for some time. In all such I was 
present if I had the opportunity. I was strong and athletic and keen 
for service, but too young or unknown to be in the special service. 

I was old enough to take some notice of the so-called judicial 
crusade of 1870-1872 under Judge James B. McKean. I remember 
well, for example, the Englebrecht liquor case in August of 1870. 
The city police turned $22,000 worth of liquor into the gutter 
which ran down the same past the bakery down the street. The 
baker’s horse and buggy were hitched in front of the store which 
was south of where the Tribune Building is now. The horse being 
thirsty drank enough of the whiskey and water in the ditch to make 
him gay. When the old baker tried to drive to his home, the drunk 
horse caused a disaster in which the baker’s leg was broken. This 
made it a notable event in my young life as well as in those of my 
neighbors, for the baker, a member of our ward, was injured 

I also have a good recollection of the John C. Sandberg 
naturalization case, and the others that followed. So I spent my 
most impressionable years during the exciting times in the 1870s 
when Utah was under the rule of such tyrants as McKean and R. 
N. Baskin. This illustrates something of my background for a 
mission and college.’' 

Many of the carpetbag officials came to Utah not to govern 
but to reform the domestic and religious affairs of the governed, 
believing that polygamy was the sum and substance of the Mormon 
system, and officials in Washington had no desire or intention of 
interfering with such action. The Republican platforms on which 
they had been elected contained a plank calling for the abolition 
of the twin relics of barbarism: slavery and polygamy. Some of 

46 Memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd 2. Moyle’s memory of this munici- 
pal election day conforms essentially with the account in Edward W. Tullidge, History 
of Salt Lake City (Salt Lake City: Star Printing Company, 1886), pp. 608-14. 

47 Memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd 2. See Tullidge, Salt Lake City, pp. 


Chapter 2 

those officials were religious fanatics and not a few knew no limit 
to their fanatical instincts. And Brigham Young was by no means 
exempt from fanaticism. He even said that men should wear bowie 
knives or stick pins on their shirts in order to fight against 
enemies. 48 

An exceptionally fine non-Mormon priest was Episcopal 
Bishop Daniel Tuttle, who throughout his long residence here 
commanded the respect of all classes. He refused to join in the 
religious and political crusades against the Mormons. I well re- 
member seeing the stone cut for St. Mark’s. The first Episcopalian 
religious services were conducted in Independence Hall on Third 
South a few rods west of Main Street. Tuttle came to Utah with 
some prejudice, but he stands out conspicuously as no other 
so-called evangelical preacher did in my early life. He later went to 
St. Louis where he served again for many years with marked 
distinction. He set the pace for his successors who generally 
followed his example. I have had great respect for the Episcopal 
clergy wherever I have found them. They are educated, conserva- 
tive, and dignified. They do not get down to the level of intolerance 
with most of the Methodist and Presbyterian preachers. Too many 
of the latter would have joined in the days of burning at the stake 
unorthodox Christians. As a boy I hated them just as 1 respected 
Bishop Tuttle and the quiet, unostentatious, and modest Catholic 
Bishop Lawrence Scanlan, who tended to his own knitting and let 
other people’s business and affairs alone. He too will go down in 
the history of Utah as a greatly honored citizen and priest. Imme- 
diately after the erection of the little red brick Catholic churchon 
Second East, Father took me to one of the first services held in he 
building. 1 well remember the odd impressions I had whet a 
member passed the bowl and they dipped their fingers in the wtter 
and touched their forehead, eyes, nose, and mouth with the waer. 
It is hard for me to say just what I thought, except that it seeued 
superstitious, but I had always heard that much of Catholicism \as 
superstition. Father, however, gave me some idea of its saced 
character in the minds of the people. 4 ” 

48 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 5. 

49 Memorandum dated Dec. 1944, Box 1, fd 4. See James W. Beless, Jr., “Darel 
S. Tuttle, Missionary Bishop of Utah,” Utah Historical Quarterly 27 (1959): Robert J. 


Young Mormon 

I think it best not to mention the names of those I detested 
among religionists, for history will not extol them. Their petty, 
miserable falsehoods and misrepresentations will go into obscu- 
rity. But I take pleasure in honoring the two pioneer non-Mormon 
religious leaders and those after them who followed in their 
footsteps. They accomplished something of value for Mormons 
and Gentiles alike. 50 

Polygamy, First Hand 

The big issue of all the anti-Mormon feeling, plural marriage, 
was a very different thing from what even our own young people 
now think it was, to say nothing about the gross misconceptions 
of the total strangers to it. The silence of our people on the subject 
now is nothing short of remarkable, especially to one who lived in 
Utah in the 1880s and 1890s when it was the most talked of and 
publicized subject before the public eye. It may be due to the fact 
that one extreme generally follows another, like the movement of 
the pendulum of a clock. 51 

When 1 was about fifteen. Father courted and married Aunt 
Maggie (Margaret Anna Cannell). It caused Mother many heart- 
aches, and I well recall her emotions when she knew Father was 
away with his new-found love. But Mother endured heroically with 
only minor complaints and protests. She submitted to the inevita- 
ble widi Christian devotion and reconciliation, but I am glad my 
wife and children have been spared the experience. I have always 
believed that Father did about as well as any of the polygamists, 
and the family was frequently referred to as rather a model 
polygamist family, but I knew of the jealousy and the heartaches 
that could not always be suppressed when Father clearly exhibited 
his appreciation for his young wife who was inclined to humor him 
more than Mother would, particularly in his taste for liquor. 
Mother was adamant against it, because she knew thoroughly 
Father’s failing for it, but Aunt Maggie liked it about as well as 
Father did, and he went to her when he could not resist the desire 

Dwyer, “Pioneer Bishop: Lawrence Scanlan, 1843-1915,” Utah Historical Quarterly 20 
(1952): 135-58. 

50 Memorandum dated Dec. 1944, Box 1, fd 4. 

51 Memorandum dated May 1938, Box 9, fd 3. See Sessions, “View of James 
Henry Moyle,” pp. 14-19. 

Chapter 2 

for liquor. Mother was not narrow on the subject; she made as 
much as ten gallons at a time of the most choice currant wine 
(gathering the currants and making the wine herself) for Father 
and herself, and would give me some. It had a real kick in it, and 
1 have often used a straw when Mother could not see to get some. 
I never tasted anything better, and I doubt if anything better was 
ever made. 

I have always believed Father’s success was due not only to his 
having two good women for wives and good judgment on his own 
part, but more than all to Mother’s devotion to her religion. She 
would have made a real practical martyr, not because she was 
overly religious or fanatical, but because she knew nothing else. 
She was born into the Church during the trying days of Nauvoo 
and passed her young life on the plains of Iowa in Winter Quarters, 
and pioneering in Utah. She married at seventeen without educa- 
tion, so all she knew was religion, labor, and hardship with a little 
fun, occasionally a dance or concert. Singing the songs of Zion 
constituted most of her diversion. I was born when she was 
nineteen and she had a baby not more than each two years 
thereafter until there were fourteen. 32 

When Aunt Maggie’s first baby (Edith) was born, both wives 
lived in the old house. Mother was at Woods Cross at the time 
visiting her mother. Father was in trouble for help, so I walked on 
the railroad tracks to Woods Cross and came back home with 
Mother who waited on Aunt Maggie and did so nobly and ungrudg- 
ingly. I must have been about fifteen. I think the balance of Aunt 
Maggie’s children were born in the Bywater house. 33 

1 well remember Mother cooking in the open fireplace with 
pots and skillet, and recollect the fact that buffalo chips were 
sometimes used with the sagebrush to make fires and even to help 
cook. I remember that it was a great event in the family and in the 
neighborhood when the first cook stove, a “No. 7 Charter Oak,” 
came to our house. Mother frequently baked bread in it for the 
neighbors and particularly newcomers who had neither cooking 

52 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 2. Of the fourteen children of James and 
Elizabeth Moyle, only six survived to adulthood. 

53 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 2. James Moyle bought the George Bywa- 
ter house in the Fifteenth Ward for his second family. 


Young Mormon 

utensils nor fuel. I took bread to a new family across the street one 
night, and as I approached I heard beautiful singing with a feeling 
and emotion I had seldom heard. “Hard times, hard times come 
again no more.” I will never forget it, young though I was. They 
were very poor and later moved to Tooele where they ran a store 
in a dugout. 

Mother was the good angel of the neighborhood; she was 
clever and willing at sewing and cutting out clothing, at spinning 
and carding, and weaving and cooking. She was always willing to 
teach the poor English and Welsh women who had not been reared 
in pioneer life. It was her pleasure. She made butter and divided 
the buttermilk with the neighbors, the same with the heart and 
liver and sweetbread of the pigs and calves when we killed. She 
even had time to he a block teacher, notwithstanding her family 
duties. She would undertake to set a broken limb or aid in any kind 
of an operation. I remember how she would jump on a horse 
bareback, throw her knee over his shoulder and ride sidesaddle 
like a circus rider. She could not be beaten in doing things like 
that. She had no education. I was quite grown when Charley 
Pierson (who later became a lawyer) came to the house and taught 
Mother to read and write. 

Her father, Grandfather Daniel Wood, located on his arrival 
here in 1848 on the northeast corner of South Temple and First 
West. Then in 1849 he took up his homestead at Woods Cross. 
Perrigrine Sessions had located in Bountiful about four months 
before, and they were the first settlers north of Salt Lake City, 
hence the upper part of Bountiful came to be called Sessions 
Settlement. Grandfather said that there was a question when they 
took out the water whether there would be enough water for the 
two families. Now there is a farming community of more than 
5,000 using the same water supply. Grandfather, being in an 
unsettled section and having a large family, built his own school- 
house and meetinghouse and maintained a school teacher him- 
self. In my time this was Charley Pierson. I would like to have 
the iron bell which hung in the old schoolhouse and called in 
family and neighbors to church school, concerts, dances, and so 
on. Grandfather’s boys constituted a very good string band. He 
often brought in entertainers to his place— conjurers, sword swal- 

Chapter 2 

lowers, and lantern slide pictures. He was a real patriarch and 
ruled as such.’ 4 

So I grew up in a polygamous family. I saw firsthand the 
blessings and curses. One thing I can say for certain and that is 
that I could not have had instilled in me a higher ideal of morality 
and chastity, which is and was far from the general beliefs concern- 
ing the state of polygamy in Utah. I feel indebted to the Church 
leaders, especially in the Fifteenth Ward, who instilled into my very 
fiber the belief that sexual morality was one of the very highest 
moral obligations of man and that the violation of sexual morality 
was in fact the most hideous crime man can commit save that of 
murder alone. Yet many is the time, especially in traveling among 
strangers to my religious faith, that I have been asked, “Well, how 
about polygamy in Utah?” It was in my early and numerous trips 
east a never-failing question. No one ever asked about “morality in 
Utah.” 55 

Great Salt Lake City 

My memory of Salt Lake City commences after the construc- 
tion of the high wall around the Temple Block and the cobble wall 
nearly as high around the Tithing Office, Deseret News, the homes 
of Brigham Young, extending as it did to First Avenue and running 
northerly, the extension of which was constructed of earth. That 
was particularly true of the high wall made of earth on Capitol Hill, 
which stood, as near as I can remember, just west of where the 
Capitol now is and on to the north. It was constructed in 1853 as 
a protection against the Indians. 56 

My first distinct recollection of seeing anything east of Main 
Street was that of Eagle Gate. It was constructed of timber and, I 
remember, was closed with light poles, which were frequently used 

54 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 2. See William R. Purrington, “The His- 
tory of South Davis County from 1847-1870,” M.S. thesis, University of Utah, 1959; 
Sessions, “Biographies and Reminiscences,” pp. 61-71; Gene A. Sessions, “Conscience 
More than Comfort: Daniel Wood,” Latter-day Patriots: Nine Mormon Families and Their 
Revolutionary War Heritage (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1975), pp. 43-63. 

55 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 5. 

56 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 2. Great Salt Lake City became Salt Lake 
City in 1868. Jenson, Encyclopedic History, p. 741. See additionally Charles B. Ander- 
son, “The Growth Patterns of Salt Lake City, Utah, and Its Determining Factors,” 

Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1945. 


Young Mormon 

for such purposes where pole fences were in use. A little later there 
were two gates made of pickets which swung from the sides to the 
center. There was a road through the gateway north to City Creek 
on North Temple. There stood at the northwest corner of State 
and North Temple a large blacksmith shop in which tools were 
made and sharpened for cutting stone and other work, shoeing 
horses, and accommodating the public generally. Just west of that 
gate was a large flour mill owned by Heber C. Kimball, whose home 
was on that block facing Main Street. From there on there were 
no buildings. Brigham Young owned the west side of State Street 
and his main barn was on the west side of State, then a mere road 
to City Creek Canyon, and he had another barn. President Grant 
says, with a lamb at the top of it, on account of which they called 
the building the “lamb barn.” That was surrounded, as was the 
barn on the west, with the orchards and gardens of Brigham 

It was not until after I was married in 1 887 that the high cobble 
wall which ran from the east side of the Eagle Gate was removed. 
It had a doorway for pedestrians not far north of South Temple, 
which led to the Eighteenth Ward Meetinghouse generally called 
“Brigham Young’s Meetinghouse.” When the wards of the city 
were first laid off, there were only nineteen and the Eighteenth 
Ward included everything east of Main and north of South Tem- 
ple. Later, the Twentieth Ward was organized and I think I 
remember when the Twenty-first Ward was organized. It included 
everything to the east, including what is now the popular Federal 
Heights section, but at that time was nothing but a dry barren waste 
with maybe a spring of sufficient size to furnish some water for 
two or more slaughterhouses, and the now rich and choice section 
was then known as “Slaughterville.” 

The wall around Temple Square was the same as it is now 
except that it was not plastered and there was a solid wall around 
the entire block with entrances on the four sides only large enough 
for a vehicle. The opening was greatly enlarged on the south side 
in about 1875. A railroad track was laid from the depot up South 
Temple to the Temple Grounds for the purpose of delivering rock 
there from Little Cottonwood Canyon, and that made it necessary 
to greatly enlarge the entrance. Prior to that time the large stones, 
many of them huge, were all transported chiefly by ox team. 

Chapter 2 

Brigham Young partly constructed a canal from Little Cottonwood 
Canyon, which ran through my farm in Cottonwood. A small 
portion of that canal as they left it still exists at the extreme north 
where there is a number of cottonwood trees, now not so very far 
from Highland Drive. It was intended to transport the rock by 
water. Whether President Young had in mind using the canal for 
irrigating purposes or not, I do not know. 

The property south on both sides of Main from South Temple 
Street, as I remember it, was residential except that at Third South 
and Main there was a two-story building, which Dan Clift had 
erected. The upstairs was used as a dance hall and court room. I 
remember attending an important trial there. I think it was that of 
a notorious horse thief, but 1 do not remember the name. Bill 
Hickman was the principle horse thief in this section of the 
territory, with his headquarters in the mouth of Bingham Canyon. 
There were practically no farms west of the Jordan River and he 
and the Cottons, with whom he was associated, could ride the 
range with their branding irons with a good deal of freedom, as 
was done elsewhere in the territory. 

At the northeast corner of Second South and West Temple 
were the California Corrals. Quite a large tract was enclosed with 
very substantial poles. As I remember, there were stables con- 
nected with it. About all I remember was that in the fall of the year, 
those who had horses and catde running at large (as a good many 
did) on the range west of the Jordan River would agree on a time 
to ride the range and gather up the horses at one time and the 
cattle at another. They would be brought into the corral and there 
each could pick out his young stock and brand it and return it to 
the range if he wanted. It was quite an exciting scene when they 
would lasso horses that had never been handled. There were many 
cowboys in those days who enjoyed showing how they could ride 
wild horses. It was quite an accomplishment and a very useful one, 
because horses raised on the open range were never handled and, 
when old enough to ride, were hard to break. That characterized 
most of the young horses. 07 

57 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 2. See N. Keith Roberts and B. Delworth 
Gardner, “Livestock and the Public Lands,” Utah Historical Quarterly 32 (1964): 285- 


Young Mormon 

I have little recollection of what stood south of the old Salt 
Lake House Hotel, which was near the center of the block at about 
where the Tribune Building is now, except the Hussey (First 
National) Bank Building, which was the first four-story building in 
the city. I remember about the time it was erected they had a large 
lump of extremely rich gold ore said to be worth thousands of 
dollars that attracted a great deal of attention. 

The old Salt Lake House was the leading hotel and was then 
the headquarters and office of the Overland Stage. One of the 
most thrilling experiences of my boyhood was to witness the 
four-horse stage swinging as it did from side to side and front and 
back, with the driver high up in front with his whip, which he could 
crack over and on the lead team if he wanted to, dashing down 
Main Street from the north to the Salt Lake House. I think it gave 
the driver a thrill, because it was one of the most exciting sights of 
the time. It was not so unlike our going to see the trains come into 
the Utah Central Railroad Station in the early days. 

The principle courtroom of the United States court was in the 
Faust Livery Stable in the middle of the block, where the Wilson 
Hotel now stands on the south side of Second South between Main 
and State. It was a two-story structure with the entrance to the 
upstairs on the outside— just a stairway hung to the west wall of the 
building— with the principal livery stable of the city below and the 
courtroom above. I suppose it was also used for dances and 
gatherings of different kinds. H. J. “Doc” Faust was an interesting 
pioneer character and livery stables in those days were very impor- 
tant business places. 5 " 

The courthouse in which the county offices were and business 
was transacted was located at Second South and Second West and 
stood until a recent date, although for a long time it ceased to be 
used as such when the present City and County Building was 

Outside of ward meeting houses, which were used in those 
early days for entertainments of all kinds, as well as for church 
services, there were no public buildings excepting those that have 

58 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 2. The original wooden stable burned in 
1865 and was replaced with a stone building. Moyle most certainly remembered the 
latter structure. See Journal History of the Church, 23 Nov. 1865, pp. 1, 3, MS, CLA. 

Chapter 2 

been named with the exception of Social Hall, which was located 
on State where Motor (Social Hall) Avenue now is. That was used 
in the early days for all kinds of entertainment— social and educa- 
tional. Independence Hall, located on the south side of Third 
South a short distance west of Main Street, was a well-known public 
building used chiefly by non-Mormons as far as I remember for 
public meetings and entertainments. 

With the boom of 1889 and 1890, great changes took place. 
The Mormon people generally regarded their homes as an inheri- 
tance in Zion and it was against their high ideals, if not their belief, 
to sell the same to non-Mormons. But the taxes were high and 
prices were alluring and a real change took place in the attitude of 
the Mormon people, who, however reluctant, parted with their old 
homes. The most notable example that I remember was that of 
Hamilton G. Park, a unique and interesting character, who owned 
a lot (which means an acre and a quarter) located on the northeast 
corner of Main and Second South, where a splendid, modern hotel 
was erected. The old Park home was also surrounded by an 
orchard and garden. Hamilton did some of his most serious 
thinking in solving the problem as to whether he would take the 
money of the promoters of the hotel and part with his inheritance, 
but he did so and was advised to do it by Church leaders. l!l 

Saints and the Lamanites 

There were plenty of Indians around in the early days of the 
city. An old Indian called Tom seemed to be the uncle of all the 
Indian children. In the summertime he often came to our house, 
and when I was very small, he greatly frightened me. I perfectly 
well recall running from him crying, and him saying to my mother, 
“Me his uncle. Tell him.” He claimed that distinction because my 
grandfather was the adopted father of his nephew and niece. He 
was a local Indian of some small prominence who often brought 
with him to our home a number of other Indians, maybe ten, 
twelve, or as many as fifteen who tied their horses to the old pole 
fence around our lot while they begged and went to town to see 
the sights and make purchases. They threw their saddles and gear 

59 Undated memorandum, Box 8, I'd 2. 

Young Mormon 

over our fence. They were not permitted to remain within the city 
limits overnight.* 1 " 

It was a common thing to see squaws begging or selling 
something. I remember especially their selling sarvis (service) 
berries, because I loved them so much. Those berries were really 
fine, were quite abundant, and squaws came to the door loaded 
with them. I do not think they grow much below six thousand feet 
elevation. I never missed getting them when they were in reach, 
but they seem to be scarce now. In Big Cottonwood Canyon they 
grew most abundantly about five miles below Brighton. They were 
as large as good-sized currants, and a very dark blue to purplish 

I remember that Tom often came to Mother saying he and his 
friends were hungry and Mother would give them food, mostly 
bread as 1 recall. That was a treat for them. They could camp at 
the city limits and I have watched them cook over the campfire, 
but I can only remember them cooking one thing, meat. Once it 
looked like a large rabbit or young dog or lamb or something of 
the kind. They say that the Utes even ate grasshoppers when they 
were abundant and their other food scarce. They boiled the meat 
in a big iron pot. 

Indians, in their crude and simple native garb, were a common 
sight both in our neighborhood and even on Main Street in those 
days. At first they wore no clothes, but later they did. It was not 
uncommon to see them dragging their tent poles tied to the backs 
of their horses. Tom once came to our place with the poles so 
attached to the horses. Their wickiups were frequently very crude, 
the tops always badly smoked, and sometimes they were very old 
and dilapidated. A camp of Indians on the suburbs always inter- 
ested me. When traveling they did not all go together hut in 
groups, maybe families. Camping places were generally across the 
Jordan or in the sagebrush above the city on the north, at least 
where I saw them. I have seen them on what is now Capitol Hill 
so they could be near businesses, as well as begging grounds. 

60 Undated memorandum. Box 8, fd 4. See J. Cecil Alter, “The Mormons and 
the Indians: News Items and Editorials from the Mormon Press,” Utah Historical Quar- 
terly 12 (1944); 49-69; Grant J. Harr, “Saint and Savage: Mormons and the Indians in 
Utah, 1846-1900,” Pli.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 1967. 

Chapter 2 

Laziness was a characteristic of the Indians, especially with the 
bucks. The squaws did the work that was done, got the wood and 
water, made the fires, and did the cooking. They generally had 
dogs that would help catch rabbits and earn their own living, unless 
the Indians were very fortunate. The dogs, too, were generally of 
the lean and hungry-looking type. Although their horses were 
small, the bucks never walked, though the squaws did. 

My Grandfather Wood adopted two Indian children, a boy and 
a girl. The girl married a white man by the name of Blood Beach. 
I think they reared a family in southern Utah. I have no recollection 
at all about whom the boy married, but it does run in my mind 
that he was reared to manhood. Grandfather’s record shows he 
also adopted Charles W. Pierson, an English boy, who became his 
scribe and schoolteacher. Pierson taught one winter in the Fif- 
teenth Ward and later became a lawyer and the right-of-way 
attorney for the Bamberger Interurban Railroad. 1 think he was 
employed by that company until his death. I am quite sure Grand- 
father adopted others, but I do not remember who. 1 ' 1 

Growing Up in the Fifteenth Ward 

It was not uncommon in the summer for boats to be kept at 
First South just east of Seventh West, and from there you could 
boat all the way down the Jordan River. When the canals were dug 
to the north from the west side of the city, I often skated on the 
canal to Hot Spring Lake. A favorite place for skating was south 
of South Temple and west of Seventh West for several blocks. We 
also hunted ducks in the sloughs from there to the Jordan. When 
we were old enough, we swam in the Jordan about where First 
South would cross the river, but the Jordan was very treacherous 
and drownings occasionally occurred. The old white bridge at 
North Temple was the only bridge over the river immediately west 
of the city until I was quite a lad. It was a popular rendezvous for 
venturesome kids who disregarded the wishes and instructions of 
their parents. One of the biggest achievements for a boy was to 

h l Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 4. For an interesting discussion of adop- 
tion among the Mormons, see Gordon Irving, “The Law of Adoption: One Phase of 
the Development of the Mormon Concept of Salvation, 1830-1900,” Brigham Young 
University Studies 14 (Spring 1973): 291-314. 


Young Mormon 

swim across the Jordan, and one of the worst pranks of boyhood 
was to hide the boys’ clothes while they swam, or worse, to tie them 
in hard knots often wetting the shirts so the knot could not be 
untied. I cannot think boys are so mean nowadays. 

My mother was a peace-loving woman and would punish me 
for fighting. I hated it also, being very diffident, but I did not 
realize my strength and boys a little older and smaller licked me 
for a short time. I soon found myself, however, and then how I 
surprised some of them, and how the bantams suddenly found it 
convenient to leave me completely alone. I had one real disadvan- 
tage, though, because I was subject to severe nose bleeding from 
no apparent cause, even when I slept. And when I fought, my nose 
bled profusely as soon as it was disturbed, and it was hard to stop. 
I long since outgrew it, but not when I was in the fighting business. 

I loved all kinds of physical sports and nothing better than ball 
and skating. When I was about ten Father bought my first store 
skates for Christmas. They had a screw at the heel about an inch 
long intended to be screwed into the heel of the shoe to hold the 
skates in place, but neither Father nor I knew how to operate it, 
so he cut the screw quite short and then the straps would not hold 
the skates in place and I had many bad falls trying to skate on those 

We skated in winter on various ponds, particularly one imme- 
diately south of Third South between Fifth and Sixth West and 
swam there in the summer. A favorite swimming and fishing place 
was just west of Second South which ended between Sixth and 
Seventh West. It was there that I and a number of others were 
baptized. It was a favorite place for such ordinances. I think we 
called it Jim Brown’s Hole. I also fished there often. During the 
high-water season in the spring, boats were freely used there and 
north and west to the Jordan. My favorite playground as a child 
was on Sixth West between First and Second South in front of 
Edward Ashton’s. There we played marbles, ball, and all the games 
common to the time. One of the favorite amusements was to get 
a nice long willow such as grew on the bottoms just below and put 
a dab of clay on the end and throw it about twenty rods when 
people were not looking. I have hit the objective when it was the 
new hat of some good neighbor, though I never admitted it before. 


Chapter 2 

The Ashton boys, Ed, Jed, and Brig, were my earliest chums; Brig 
was just my age. He and I alternated playing and fighting. 

We had two cows and my riding pony, all of which I cared for. 
We raised all our fruit, potatoes, vegetables, and generally about 
enough corn for our pigs, and fodder with hay for our cows. I 
abominated hoeing and weeding, because it kept me from the 
Ashtons. Being the oldest, I also had to mind the babies, churn, 
chop wood, and do all the chores. Oh, how burdensome but 
unavoidable it was. And how many switchings Mother gave me for 
neglect and never when I did not deserve them. 

Competing with the Ashton boys as favorite companions were 
Joe Bywater and John Lloyd. Joe’s father was a great preacher. His 
family prayers were long, eloquent, and impressive in sound, but 
too long to impress favorably the boys who wanted to get out to 
play after breakfast as well as after supper. Subsequently, none of 
the Bywater boys was noted for being prayerful. 

At about twelve or thirteen I began to sow my wild oats. I 
started by being out nights at the Utah Central Railroad Station, 
where the roughs assembled. There Joe and John and I got 
cigarettes and smoked, and I began my downward career. 1 soon 
after joined the wayward in going swimming on Sundays without 
a chaperon. We played cards for playthings, pocket knives, and 
some of the boys even played for money. Soon after 1 quit the more 
quiet boys of the Fifteenth Ward and Sixth West for the sons of 
more important families— Tom Tennant, Charley Barnum, Fred 
Jones, and Hosea Burton. They were rapidly becoming real sports, 
and when 1 was about fourteen, we got drunk in the saloon at Third 
West and First South on the northeast corner. I went to a party in 
the ward house in that condition, which shocked the natives and 
was a terrible blow to my father who said he would rather follow 
me to the grave than have me pursue that course. Oh, how thirsty 
I was the next morning. I played the truant and ran away from 
school to see the races that were several miles away over thejordan 
beyond Third or Fourth South. I made fun of the boys who acted 
as deacons and so on. 

This continued until I was in my fifteenth year, when Bishop 
Joseph Pollard, in a most authoritative and impressive way, said to 
me, “I want you to be a deacon.” I was almost stunned with 
78 surprise, indeed bewildered, but there was in me as if by instinct 

Young Mormon 

and certainly by training the conception that the bishop had a right 
to demand my services and it was my duty to respond. I put him 
off, saying I would let him know. The more I thought of it the more 
I felt it my duty to yield, but how could I face the boys? I loved and 
respected my parents and I knew they would be immensely 
pleased, so finally I concluded to accept the call. I gradually broke 
away from the roughs, and so devoted myself to the duties of 
deacon that the bishop said I was the best in the ward. We cleaned 
out the meetinghouse, swept, mopped and dusted, filled the 
coal-oil lamps, trimmed the wicks, made the fire, did all the 
janitorial work, and put the house in order generally, and looked 
after the door and entrance. In those days, everybody found their 
seats unaided. We performed no spiritual duty and received no 
special spiritual instruction or training, and there was no organi- 
zation or quorum of deacons so far as I can recall. We merely took 
our turns cleaning the meetinghouse and had it to do frequently. 
I was very conscientious about it, and never thereafter allowed 
myself to be wayward or irreligious. 1 then acted as a ward teacher 
travelling with an older man, and at sixteen I had my endowments 
in the old Endowment House. Then at seventeen I was ordained 
a seventy at the home of James Barlow by James Cummings who 
was president, and was admitted as a member of the second 
quorum. 1 ’ 

John Smith, who gave me my patriarchal blessing, forecast my 
future life in a notable, prophetic way, and I wholeheartedly 
believe he was inspired of the Lord in the giving of that blessing. 
I have felt that distinctly from the first, and claimed it of the Lord 
as a right if I lived worthily of it. Patriarch Smith, whom I believe 
enjoyed a large degree of divine inspiration when functioning in 
his office, was another marked example of a mixture of the good 
and bad, success and failure, divine guidance and error in the same 
individual. In spite of the Word of Wisdom, he so loved liquor and 
tobacco that he violated that law in an almost flagrant way. That 
was the opinion of his neighbors and many of those who knew him 
well. My wife, for example, was reared within a half block of his 
home. His family too was not a model or even fair representative 
of a Mormon family religiously. They paid little attention to 

62 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 2. 

Chapter 2 

religious activities in the ward or Church, for the father was away 
much of the time giving blessings. In fact, the members of the 
family were such that no son (though he had several) was thought 
worthy to be his successor. As I remember, the Church had to wait 
some time for his grandson to be old enough or fit for the duties 
of the office. Consequently, the enjoyment of the right ended there 
in that family, at least for the present . 63 

John Smith gave me my blessing in the living room of his 
modest adobe home on the corner of Third South and First West. 
His daughter wrote it down in longhand. He was some time— per- 
haps a half hour or more— giving it. He walked up and down and 
around the room. He spoke very deliberately and paused at times 
as if waiting for further inspiration. I observed the color of tobacco 
very distinctly on his heavy mustache and beard near his mouth. 
He was gray and distinctly patriarchal in appearance, and looked 
the part he performed . 1 ’ 1 

Life in the Commonwealth 

When the Mutual Improvement Associations were organized, 

I became a member, and though diffident forced myself to take 
part and to become active. I think I was secretary of all events when 
Tom Hunn was made president. I was one of his counselors and 
later became president, working successfully to bring into the 
association some of the wild and wayward. I was also an active 
teacher in Sunday School and for a considerable time secretary of 
the school under Thomas C. Griggs, whom I respected very greatly. 
At fourteen, being a large and strong boy, I was put to work on 
the Temple Block as a stonecutter. I worked all summer doing 
heavy, rough work. I was paid by the piece, and made good wages, 
all of which was turned over to Father. Our pay was in tithing 
orders and very little cash which always went for flour, meat, and 
potatoes. But you generally had to wait a long time to get meat or 
anything very desirable. To get meat we would go early in the 
morning before work, which began in those days at seven, quitting 

63 Memorandum dated Dec. 1944, Box 1, fd 4. See Joseph Fielding Smith, Essen- 
tials in Church History, 24th ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1971), pp. 581-82. 

64 Memorandum dated Dec. 1944, Box 1, fd 4. See Irene M. Bates and E. Gary 
Smith, Lost Legacy: The Mormon Office of Presiding Patriarch (Urbana: University of Illi- 
nois Press, 1996), pp. 107-18. 

Young Mormon 

at six. I remember we had quite a time getting bran for the cows 
and wheat for the chickens. It was desirable to play up to the clerk, 
old Ben Hampton; the men said a bottle of whiskey went a long 
way with him. The Dixie people raised grapes and made wine, paid 
tithing with it, and then we could get some of the wine from the 
tithing office. That was considered all right if used temperately, 
and neither was it sinful to drink Margett’s and Eddie’s Beer which 
would and did intoxicate. 1 ” 

Tithing was paid in kind; for example, the Dixie wine was 
brought all the way to the Tithing Office in Salt Lake City. 
Anything a man produced, whether hay or grain or vegetables, was 
hauled to the Tithing Yards and stored there. The Salt Lake 
Tithing Office, storehouse, and hay yards were where the Hotel 
Utah is now with the stockyards and corrals nearby. In each city or 
county seat there were smaller but similar accommodations for 
handling tithing paid in kind. 1 * 

Later, a little building was erected on the Tithing Grounds 
where the stake headquarters operated a lot for the purpose of 
handling and caring for the tithing. In the wintertime it was easily 
identified by that little one-room structure and the stacks of hay 
in the yard adjoining." 7 

As a little boy I carried a tin bucket holding maybe a gallon of 
flour to Brother Varney’s home where, as the representative of the 
bishop, he had barrels, boxes, and bins in which were kept the 
monthly fast donations of the members of the ward. These were 
generally paid in some commodity which the poor could eat. 
Mother paid our fast donation (as I think many did) in flour. 

Men worked in those days ten hours a day with no transporta- 
tion except shanks ponies [on foot]. Hence the day’s work was 
longer by a half hour or more before and after hours. There were 
no holidays except July the Fourth, Pioneer Day (July 24), Christ- 
mas, and New Year’s Day. Work was a daylight-to-dark affair much 

65 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 2. 

Memorandum dated Feb. 1943, Box 9, fd 7. See Leonard J. Arrington and 
Ralph W. Hansen, “Mormon Economic Organization: A Sheaf of Illustrative Docu- 
ments,” Utah Historical Quarterly 28 (1960): 41-55. 

67 Memorandum dated Feb. 1943, Box 9, fd 7. See Leonard J. Arrington “The 
Mormon Tithing House: A Frontier Business Institution,” Business History Review 28 
(Mar. 1954): 24-58. 

Chapter 2 

of the year, with no amusement but an occasional dance, concert, 
or theater of some kind at night for most of the folks, with ball 
playing, running, jumping, swimming, skating, wrestling, boxing, 
horse racing, fighting, and so on for the boys, but not for the girls. 
Such was life in Salt Lake City and elsewhere in Utah in the 1860s 
and much so in the 1870s and 1880s. The reforms or luxuries of 
short working hours, Saturday afternoons off, and frequent holi- 
days and amusements were little-known or talked about. The 
established habit of seeing a movie or being at a dance once a week 
or much oftener was inconceivable, and yet we were as happy then 
if not happier than now. 68 

A ward, in those days, constituted a little social, religious, and 
political commonwealth that provided for all the needs of the 
society. The bishop and his counselors were the complete local 
government. Block teachers, supplemented by the Relief Society 
teachers, looked after every social, economic, and political need 
of every member of the ward. They were the economic and social 
guardians of the community, of which all members were of the 
same religious and political faith. 69 

I remember well when the first non-Mormon made his home 
in the ward about a block away from our house. He was a modest, 
quiet, good citizen— a miner who had sold his claims in the moun- 
tains for sufficient to enable him to retire for life in a modest way. 70 

If a person were sick or in need, he received assistance 
promptly. There was no red tape or formalities. There were both 
male and female block teachers on each block, and the bishop was 
soon advised if there was more than ordinary neighborly help 
needed. Even the school trustees operated in harmony with the 
bishop in selecting the schoolteacher. The bishop also sponsored 
the entertainments which consisted chiefly of dances, concerts, 
and occasional lectures. 

68 Memorandum dated Oct. 1943, Box 10, fd 3. 

69 Undated memorandum, Box 9, fd 2. See Arrington, Great Basin Kingdom, pp. 


70 Undated memorandum, Box 9, fd 2. See Robert J. Dwyer, The Gentile Comes 
to Utah: A Study in Religious and Social Conflict (1862-1890) (Washington, D.C.; Catho- 
lic University of America Press, 1941). Moyle read Dwyer with great interest since he 
had witnessed firsthand the subject of the book. See his copious reading notes in 
Boxes 13-15. 


Young Mormon 

The actual city government consisted locally of a justice of the 
peace and a constable who look charge when coercive measures 
were needed. But the bishop was the most important individual in 
this little commonwealth, and the ward and its territorial limits was 
a real political entity, almost as complete as the little nations of 
Europe in their spheres. The poor were kept in their own homes, 
on a level not so far from that of their neighbors. Even the 
ordinarily insane stayed home. 1 remember one who was chained 
to a pole in his dooryard. 71 

The knowledge of Brigham Young’s leadership in common- 
wealth building has extended to every great nation of the world 
and will stand as an ideal to be studied. But the simplicity of the 
society of that day has so changed that a new social and economic 
order is now demanded and the old ideals, however much to be 
preserved so far as practical, must yield to the demands of our 
present complicated social and economic conditions. To reason 
otherwise would be like trying to go back to the means of trans- 
portation that required three months to make the trip to the 
Missouri River that is now made in a few hours. 

If the authors of socialism or communism have advanced ideas 
that will aid in the solution of vital problems in our social order, 
they should not be ignored just because they are part of an 
unpopular ideology. It is true that the essentials of man’s free 
agency must be preserved, and likewise the rule of the majority, 
for there is something of divinity in it. Every political advance 
made to meet the needs of a higher social and political order 
involved the surrender of freedom. The Constitution of the United 
States, now honored by all the liberty-loving of the world, required 
both men and colonies to surrender some elements of freedom. 
Every law involves restraint and limitation of freedoms, especially 
of the strong and in favor of the weak and peace-loving. To say 
that we are being unwisely and unfairly deprived of our liberties 
and property in meeting demands of present-day social and eco- 
nomic reforms is only the repetition of the cry of the reactionary 

71 Undated memorandum, Box 9, fd 2. For an interesting study of life in early 
Utah, see Nels Anderson, Desert Saints: The Mormon Frontier in Utah (Chicago: Univer- 
sity of Chicago Press, 1942), pp. 83-446. In connection with the function of the bishop 
and the ward in the community, see especially ibid., pp. 334-60. 

Chapter 2 

against every social and economic advance of society and govern- 
ment. It is true there is danger in overdoing it and it should be 
remembered always that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, 
but there are merits on both sides of the great issues of life, and 
the happy medium course should prevail so as to let progress come 
naturally as man is able to receive it and digest it. Too much of 
most anything at a time should be avoided. But we might just as 
well try to dam the Mississippi all at once and in one place as to 
try to dam the course of progress because it involves a loss of 
freedoms heretofore enjoyed. That is what the reactionary at- 
tempts to do when he cries out against necessary socio-economic 
changes. An equal error is made by the rash radical who would 
attempt to go too fast and too far at a time. 7 " 

72 Undated memorandum. Box 9, fd 2. See additionally for the period of this 
chapter the following: undated memoranda, Box 9, fd 1; Box 8, fd 1; Box 8, fd 8; 
memorandum dated May 1943, Box 10, fd 1; memorandum dated Feb.-Apr. 1944, 
Box 10, fd 6. 


Chapter 3 


Brother Brigham 

I have a very clear remembrance of Brigham Young. He died in 
1877, making me old enough and big enough to be one of the 
bodyguards at his funeral. He gave me the impression of great 
force and strength of character. That, however, is no doubt in- 
fluenced some by other facts I learned from reading. When I 
read as a young boy Tullidge’s history of Brigham Young, I was 
thrilled as probably nothing I ever read before by his account of 
the President’s treatment of Johnston’s Army (the Utah Expedi- 
tion of 1857-58) when negotiations were on relative to the terms 
upon which our people would permit the peaceful entry of that 
army into the Salt Lake Valley. The Saints were poverty-stricken, 
with nothing but a job lot of old guns of all kinds picked up here 
and there. Their ammunition was largely of their own crude 
making, the powder and bullets home-made by the simplest of 
methods. 1 

I was also impressed by the fact that when merchants, build- 
ers, and farmers (and we had few other callings except laborers) 
wanted to engage in something new, or to go east to make 

1 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 3; James Henry Moyle Collection, Library- 
Archives, Historical Department, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt 
Lake City, hereinafter cited as CLA. All references hereinafter to box and folder (fd) 
are for items from this collection. See Edward W. Tullidge, Life of Brigham Young; or, 
Utah and Her Founders, 2d ed. (New York: Tullidge & Crandall, 1877), pp. 242-96. 


Chapter 3 

purchases, or to move out into new or underdeveloped sections, 
they would call on “Brother Brigham,” as he was familiarly called, 
for advice. He seemed to be the all-out leader. He was a father 
to all, and exercised the privileges of a real father to all in that 
respect. My father-in-law, Henry Dinwoodey, became a thrifty and 
successful businessman, and knowing that Brother Brigham was 
in need of money for some enterprise and not wanting to be 
asked to invest in it, called on him and said, “Brother Brigham, 

I am badly in need of more money.” In this way he could keep 
in Brigham’s good graces without having to invest his money . 2 

Many of the brethren went to brother hrigham for advice 
about getting married, not only as to women but how they would 
be able to build and take care of a home, where they should locate, 
and so on. With all of these things, not to mention the big problems 
of community life and empire-building, I was impressed with the 
idea that Brigham Young was all but a king as well as great high 
priest, prophet, and father to his people whom he called in from 
the nations of the world . 3 

The Gathering 

I shall never forget the wretched poverty of the immigrants 
as they made their fire beside their covered wagons and cooked 
their meals in a pot and skillet and frying pan. Some of them 
remained in the campgrounds for a considerable time. Most of 
them were taken in by friends or relatives, but some remained 
for weeks before they were located in more or less remote sec- 
tions of the territory. Some made homes on the hillside in dug- 
outs where they lived for years. Half of the houses or more were 
underground, with mother earth for walls and roof. That was not 
such an uncommon sight in Salt Lake City and the settlements 
in the country. The makeshift homes on the bad or poor lands 
near the city were sometimes much like those I saw on the 

2 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 3. For Henry Dinwoodey’s autobiography, 
see Gene A. Sessions, ed., “Biographies and Reminiscences from the James Henry 
Moyle Collection,” unpublished manuscript, 1974, CLA, sec. 12. 

3 Undated memorandum. Box 8, fd 3. Recent and notable works on the life of 
Brigham Young are Leonard J. Arrington, Brigham Young: American Moses (New York: 
Knopf, 1985), and Newell G. Bringhurst, Brigham Young and the Expanding American 
Frontier (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1986). 



riverside in New York City and other cities during the Great 
Depression of the 1930s where homes were made of outcast 
materials which could be obtained for little or nothing. But some 
of our finest families started in dugouts and makeshift homes of 
the poorest character, and on what was then considered very 
poor lands. The Federal Heights area of Salt Lake City was called 
Butcherville (or Slaughterville) when I was a young man due to 
its having a spring or two enough to furnish water for one or 
two primitively crude and uninspected slaughterhouses. 1 well 
remember when 1 first ■visited the upper part of the city. It must 
have been about 1868 or possibly earlier. There was, as 1 remem- 
ber, nothing but sagebrush east of Tenth East and only scattered 
homes. That was all due to lack of water. The poor Scandinavians 
came in considerable numbers and they were often so frugal that 
any kind of a home that was their own or that did not require 
rent payments was sufficient. Their frugality, thrift, and industry, 
however, soon made comfortable homes where it was possible, 
and they tried even where it was not possible. Their coming 
constituted a real feature of the time. 1 

I shall never forget the poor Saints camped there who had 
no relatives or friends who would take them in, particularly the 
Scandinavians, who seemed to be the poorest. Their apparently 
extreme poverty appealed to my young soul most pathetically. I 
was just big enough to be far from home, and 1 wanted to help 
some of them, especially one woman I remember who seemed 
to have no man to help her. She seemed to me wretched, but 
went about undaunted. She could not speak English. I shall never 
forget the sight. When she made the fire to cook her meal I 
sought to help her find sticks of wood and was delighted to think 
I could be of service to her. She was tall and very thin and her 
clothes harmonized with her (I think) wooden shoes, which were 
not so uncommon with them. I watched the completing of the 

4 Memorandum dated Jan. 1945, Box 12, fd 1. See William Mulder, “Mormon- 
ism’s ‘Gathering’: An American Doctrine with a Difference,” Church History 23 (Sept. 
1954): 3-19; Mulder, “Through Immigrant Eyes: Utah History at the Grass Roots,” 

Utah Historical Quarterly 22 (1954): 41-55; Mulder, “Mormons from Scandinavia, 1850- 
1900: A Shepherded Migration,” Pacific Historical Review 23 (Aug. 1954): 227-46; Mul- 
der, Homeward to Zion: The Mormon Migration from Scandinavia (Minneapolis: Univer- 
sity of Minnesota Press, 1957). 

Chapter 3 

cooking and eating, visiting many of a similar character, for they 
were scattered over the large yard.' 

The number gradually decreased until there were very few, 
and then none until the next train or company arrived. I watched 
the Scandinavians especially, for they had less friends with favor- 
able surroundings than the English, Welsh, or Scots, who so largely 
predominated then in Utah. 1 ’ 

I followed families that started in a dugout on the hillside, or 
in the suburbs of the city in homes made not of the dignified rough 
logs, but of what could be picked up— cheap boards, coal oil cans, 
any old thing that would afford some shelter. The same occurred 
on sagebrush land they found west of the Jordan. The improve- 
ment was gradually but persistently made in these dugouts and 
tin-can surroundings until they had a comfortable home and more 
frequently a farm with it. They were the personification of industry 
and thrift, and the wooden-shoed, poverty-stricken Scandinavians 
(for they were the best example of the class) were the fathers of 
some of our distinguished lawyers, doctors, educators, and finan- 
ciers. The informed English-speaking regarded them as inferior, 
but their stock gradually grew in value until now and for some time 
these rough diamonds are not discounted at all but on the contrary 
by many (including myself) are regarded as being among the very 
best. I believe they are of the royal blood of Israel.' 

Green Young Man from the Mountains 

That experience on the Zion end of the gathering was only 
one of many that led me to be willing to make any sacrifice for the 
Gospel. When I was eighteen, Father was asked if I could go on a 
mission. He did not want me taken out of school, so it was 
postponed until I was twenty.* So I left for my mission to North 
Carolina on about the first of July, 1879. I remember I was in St. 

5 Undated memorandum, Box 9, fd 1. See William Mulder, “Utah’s Ugly Duck- 
lings: A Profile of the Scandinavian Immigrant,” Utah Historical Quarterly 23 (1955): 
233-59. See also undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 2. 

6 Undated memorandum, Box 9, fd 1. See Philip A. M. Taylor, “Why Did Brit- 
ish Mormons Emigrate?” Utah Historical Quarterly 22 (1954): 249-70. 

7 Undated memorandum, Box 9, fd 1. See Richard L. Jensen, “The Friendly In- 
vasion: Scandinavian Immigrants ...,” Ensign 4 (July 1974): 46-47. 

8 Undated memorandum. Box 8, fd 2. Cross-reference Moyle’s remembrances 
of his mission and college days in these chapters with his diaries in Box 1 . 


Louis on the Fourth. We traveled over the Union Pacific to Denver, 
which was then a comparatively small and young city. They were 
grading the capitol grounds preparatory to the erection of the 
State Capitol. The capitol site was far beyond the best section with 
very few residences nearby. We then went to Pueblo, traveling over 
the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe to Kansas City. The passenger 
cars then had little protection for passengers outside of a railing 
on the outer side of the entrance, and when one went from one 
car to another, he took some chances because of the rough 
roadbed and rail connections and the light weight of the cars.' 1 

Eastern Colorado and western Kansas were then very much of 
a desert wilderness except for the grass and a few trees along the 
streams. Many of the passengers were dressed in typical cowboy 
and ranch styles, but not so much like the more orderly cowboy 
suits of today. Many of them wore big, broadbrim hats. I remember 
one rough-looking, villainous character with a long, black mus- 
tache and pistols entered the train in Kansas, and I was sure he 
was an outlaw. 

At Kansas City I was greatly surprised to see trains frequently 
coming and going. I think there were only four or five tracks beside 
a big and rickety lumber station. 1 was quite overawed by the 
number of trains and the rushing, pushy crowd. 

St. Louis was the first sight of a city of any consequence. While 
there I found my Grandmother Moyle’s sister who was married to 
a man named Edward Boone. She had quite a family, although I 
remember only three or four boys who were employed in deliver- 
ing ice and working in an ice plant. Mrs. Boone was of the same 
heavyset type as Grandmother Moyle. She was a very wholesome- 
looking and substantial Englishwoman. 

At that time the bridge over the Mississippi at St. Louis was 
considered to be a real wonder of the world. It was the first span 
said to be a mile long. The next most interesting and notable sight 
to us from the Great American Desert was Shaw’s Gardens, which 
was then quite a distance from the city and we had to travel out to 
it in an electric street car. This was also a marvel. There were six 
of us, all green, young men from the mountains. I think I was the 

9 Memorandum dated Feb. 1933, Box 9, fd 3. See Jack Goodman, “Mid-Century 
Crossing by Rail,” Utah Historical Quarterly 37 (Winter 1969): 135-43. 

Chapter 3 

youngest of the party though in charge of the little group. We 
marveled at the labyrinth made in the gardens of huge hedges, 
which made it difficult to get in or get out once you were in. We 
had never seen anything like it. The flowers, trees, and grounds 
were all beautiful. To us it was a veritable paradise. 10 

We traveled down the west bank of the Mississippi to a point 
opposite Columbus, Tennessee. While still on the train, I was 
reading when I supposed we were merely switching and then 
standing in the station. I happened to look out and was astonished 
to observe that we were on the water. The train, as was universal 
those days in crossing anything like the Mississippi, was being 
ferried across the stream. It gave me quite a sensation. 

From there we went to Corinth, Mississippi, where we had 
to remain overnight on account of lack of train connections. We 
went to a hotel, but it was so hot and to us intolerably humid 
that we asked permission to put our beds out in the hall where 
we could get some ventilation. We suffered greatly with the heat 
and humidity. 

Charley Bliss, the boldest and rashest of the group, arranged 
for a meeting in the courthouse and we scattered the news as well 
as we could until we had quite a little gathering. Charley, who was 
the least informed, had the most to say. In fact, he ranted so 
recklessly that I finally had to ask him to quit, after I had repeatedly 
pulled his coattails trying to caution him against rash statements. 
Nevertheless, we thought our amateurish meeting was not a bad 

We traveled easterly for Chattanooga, Tennessee, and shortly 
before we arrived I was again reading on the train and was so 
interested that I had not observed that there was no one left in the 
car. It was very warm and my window was up, and when I looked 
out I observed people more or less excitedly pointing up and to 
the south. I couldn’t think what was the matter because I could not 
see anything of special interest, but when I went out I was informed 
that the people from the low lands of the Mississippi Valley were 
gazing at the biggest mountain they had ever seen. Mount Look- 

10 Memorandum dated Feb. 1933, Box 9, fd 3. See Gene A. Sessions, ed., “A 
View of James Henry Moyle: His Diaries and Letters,” unpublished manuscript, 1974, 
CLA, pp. 1-2. 



out, which was probably five or six hundred feet above the level. 
Used to the great Rockies, I thought this very amusing. 

In Chattanooga we found the mission secretary at the head- 
quarters, but not the president, John Morgan. Charley Bliss and 
his companion, Benjamin Harker, father of Mrs. Elbert D. 
Thomas, went into Alabama, and four of us went through eastern 
Tennessee to Withville, Virginia, where we parted, two going to 
Virginia, and myself and N. W. Taylor of Harrisville, Weber 
County, going into North Carolina. Taylor was about twenty-six or 
twenty-seven and had been born and partially reared in Surry 
County, North Carolina, and had many relatives there. We were 
met by two missionaries from the North Carolina Conference who 
took us over to Mount Airie where we stopped at the hotel." 

We had never had any experience with blacks and I was 
anxious to treat them right and so I carefully referred to them as 
“Negroes,” which was very offensive. They like to be called “col- 
ored people.” IJ 

We were soon introduced to the Saints who welcomed us 
and were very hospitable. Henry G. Boyle, one of the most suc- 
cessful of our missionaries, was a native, I think, of North Caro- 
lina and a very interesting character and entertaining speaker. 
He had an unlimited supply of good stories and jokes with which 
he kept the audiences awake and preached the Gospel to them 
between times. Boyle had baptized several hundred people in 
Surry County and a portion of Stokes, and most of them had 
moved to the southern part of Utah County, and I think particu- 
larly Payson. 

Jonas N. Beck, a man about my father’s age and hard of 
hearing, of Newton, Cache County, and Alexander Spence of 
Wellsville, Cache County, were the only other missionaries in the 
conference. They had been out nearly two years. They labored with 

11 Memorandum dated Feb. 1933, Box 9, fd 3. See Arthur M. Richardson and 
Nicholas G. Morgan, Sr., The Life and Ministry of John Morgan (Salt Lake City: Nicholas 
G. Morgan, Sr., Publisher, 1965), pp. 9 Iff, for the Morgan era of the Southern States 

12 Memorandum dated Feb. 1933, Box 9, fd 3. See an interesting account of 
Moyle’s experience at an African-American camp meeting in Gene A. Sessions, 

“Camp Meeting at Willowtree, 1881,” Journal of American Folklore 87 (Oct.-Nov. 1974): 


Chapter 3 

us for three or four months, introducing and giving us a start. Then 
they were released and I was made president of the conference. 

I found that from the days of Joseph Smith missionaries had 
been laboring part of the time in the vicinity of Surry County, but 
so far as I could learn they had never labored outside of the 
particular locality. George Grant, brother of Jedediah, was one of 
the early missionaries. I was greatly surprised to find that no effort 
had been made to open other fields of labor in North Carolina and 
that nothing had been done in South Carolina. The excuse offered 
was that there was plenty for two missionaries to do in the section 
I called a “nest” of about twenty miles long and maybe ten to fifteen 
miles wide. It was the habit of the missionaries to stay one night 
in a home and it took them about a month to go around the 
district, there being about that number of families who were 
pleased to entertain them. We then traveled without purse or scrip 
and had comparatively little trouble in getting our meals and a 
place to sleep. 1 ' 

In Search of Henry Lindsay 

After I had been out about six weeks, I pleaded with the older 
missionaries to take me out into new sections of the state, and 
finally Brother Beck said he would go with me. We had heard that 
a man in Burke County named Lindsay was a member of the 
Church, but we did not have his address or his full name, and we 
started out with the determination to find him if we could. 

Our first night out and after walking twelve or fifteen miles, 
we found a comfortable resting place in the courthouse at Dobson, 
the Surry County seat. We were permitted to preach in the 
courthouse, so we circulated the word of our meeting as best we 
could. Twenty-five or thirty orderly people came and at the con- 
clusion of the meeting a man gave us a clipping out of a local 
newspaper about the shooting of Joseph Standing in Georgia, 
which was not far beyond the southwestern corner of North 
Carolina which was on our direct line of advance. The effect of the 

13 Memorandum dated Feb. 1933, Box 9, fd 3. Actually, it was Jedediah Grant 
himself and his brother Joshua who established the Mormon base in Surry County in 
1837-38 and again in 1839-42. See Gene A. Sessions, Mormon Thunder: A Documentary 
History of Jedediah Morgan Grant (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1982), 10-31. 


news seemed to stir both of us tremendously and instead of 
discouraging us made us more determined to go on and to keep 
up our attempt to car ry the good work to western and southwest- 
ern North Carolina. 14 

The people we saw as we traveled were very poor. It was not 
so long after the Civil War, and there were but few bridges and 
many streams and rivers to ford. East of the Blue Ridge Mountains 
there were very few horses and it was quite unusual to meet even 
a horse team, or for that matter, any kind of vehicle, so that when 
we came to rivers, we had to ford them, and did so both winter 
and summer by wading and swimming. 

A one-horse and a two-horse farm had very distinct meaning 
with these people. While corn grew in abundance, hay was as 
scarce as hen’s teeth. ¥07 many of the farms consequently had no 
draft animals on them at all. Some of them would have an old horse 
and the more fortunate, a cow used with the horse to do their work. 
Sometimes there was a pair of oxen, but where they had one good 
horse they were quite fortunate and were known as one-horse 
farmers. Two-horse farmers were regarded with special respect, 
and if they had more than two horses, they were getting into the 
rich man’s class. The lands throughout the country were very hilly 
and difficult to plough or was covered with dense timber. Cheap 
land outside of the river bottoms with all kinds of fine hardwood 
timber on it could be had for two or three dollars an acre, but the 
soil was thin and where cultivated would soon wear out and wash 
away in the rain. 1 ” 

The poverty was so extreme in many cases that the people 
seemed to have no hope of anything better. They seemed to make 
the best of it, though, and when not suffering the pangs of hunger 
or cold, they seemed very happy. That was especially true with the 

14 Memorandum dated Feb. 1933, Box 9, fd 3. See John Nicholson, “Death of 
Elder Joseph Standing,” in Preston Nibley, ed., Missionary Experiences (Salt Lake City: 
Deseret Book Co., 1954), pp. 223-47; Ken Driggs, ‘“There is No Law in Georgia for 
Mormons:’ The Joseph Standing Murder Case in 1879,” Georgia Historical Quarterly 73 
(Winter 1989): 745-72; Gene A. Sessions, “Myth, Mormonism, and Murder in the 
South,” South Atlantic Quarterly 75 (Spring 1976): 212-25. 

15 Memorandum dated Feb. 1933, Box 9, fd 3. For contemporary descriptions 
of the South during the period of Moyle’s stay, see M. L. Avery, Dixie After War 
(1906); V. V. Clayton, While and Black (1899). 

Chapter 3 

blacks. It was frequently said that if they had a bushel of corn and 
a slice of bacon, they were happy until it was gone. The poor blacks 
(and most of them were poor) were a distinct class, though the 
poor whites were often little better off if any. 

On the hills that constituted the country generally, they were 
fortunate if they could get more than ten or twelve bushels of 
wheat to the acre. The soil would produce a fairly good crop of 
corn and for a year or two a good crop of tobacco. After that, they 
had to spend so much on fertilizer that the farmers realized very 
little more than a scant living. 

Our food was of the simplest kind, and we rarely ever had meat 
of any kind, excepting pork, which was produced in great quanti- 
ties. The young pigs were turned loose in the forest in the spring 
and they lived on roots and the acorns, hickory nuts and chestnuts, 
and such herbage as they could get. In the fall, they were generally 
very thin but with a new crop of acorns and chestnuts they would 
fatten. Then they were put in pens or small yards and their flesh 
hardened on corn. It was not an uncommon thing for the hogs to 
die from cholera. When a farmer had fat hogs and he found any 
of them not eating, he would immediately kill and sell for fear 
cholera would take them. There was no inspection and all that the 
market called for was fat stuff, and thus cholera and pneumonia 
were propagated. 

There were, however, some articles of food that greatly re- 
lieved the monotony. One was green string beans, which were 
raised in abundance and lasted from early in the summer to late 
in the fall. They were cooked with a little bacon and constituted 
the most tasty and desirable food that we had, excepting chicken 
that was also raised in considerable quantity. It was customary for 
the people to give their preachers chicken, although a good many 
of our Church members were too poor to indulge in that kind of 
luxury; hence, their eggs went to market. Although our meals were 
almost universally obtained at farms, we seldom had milk because 
of the scarcity of cows. 

We missionaries all enjoyed excellent health due probably to 
our simple food and persistent exercise. We often chopped wood 
and even did some hoeing to help out the good farmers who 
helped us. 

Our only clothing, during the greater part of the year, was a 


soft or straw hat, cotton duster, trousers, and a pair of shoes, with 
a good supply of handkerchiefs that were kept around the neck in 
place of a collar in the very hot weather. We did not even wear a 
shirt, for if we did, it would seem not fit to be seen. We very often 
had to do our washing in cold water. I frequently washed my 
clothing in the streams of water and waited for them to dry. 

From Dobson we traveled southwesterly along the lower foot- 
hill country of the Blue Ridge and had quite an interesting expe- 
rience at Wilkesboro, North Carolina, where I bore my first 
testimony to the divinity of the Gospel and of the divine work of 
Joseph Smith. I had said that 1 would not bear my testimony until 
I actually did know, and so stated in the Fifteenth Ward meeting 
where I spoke just before leaving for a mission. Brother Charles 
W. Penrose was then a member of the Fifteenth Ward and spoke 
after me. He said that 1 did have a testimony and did not realize 
it. At Wilkesboro we spoke in a little log school-house, not more 
than twelve by fifteen feet, with nothing but rude logs roughly 
chinked with no floor and no windows excepting wooden shutters. 
The benches consisted of the roughest and cheapest kind. We 
possibly had ten or twelve people present. I was literally forced to 
bear my testimony. I could not resist the impulse to do so and thus 
I found myself doing it apparently against my will. 

In the adjoining county seat, Lenoir, we were unable to hold 
a meeting, so we walked on to the county seat of Burke County at 
Morganton, one of the oldest cities in North Carolina. It had a 
population of about three or four thousand and possibly more and 
was the big city of western North Carolina. There was no industry 
in the state then. Raleigh as I remember had about 15,000 people 
in it. Wilmington, on the coast, was the only larger city. There was 
but one railroad in western North Carolina and that ran from the 
east through Morganton to Asheville. We succeeded in getting a 
meeting in the county courthouse at Morganton. We were inter- 
viewed at the close of the meeting by a newspaperman from whom 
we learned that Henry Lindsay lived up the Catawba River about 
twenty miles, a short distance from Bridgewater. We experienced 
some hostility but no resistance. 

Ministry Along the Catawba 

The next day we walked to Bridgewater where we ferried 


across the river in a little boat and then walked up the river bottom 
to the home of Henry Lindsay. This was to become our radiating 
point in that part of the country. He was a tall, dignified, and 
unusually intelligent man for that time and locality. Serving as 
correspondent for the paper whose reporter had interviewed us 
in Morganton, he was literate and well-informed. His wife was a 
very nice, motherly lady by whom he had a number of children. 
He had previously married and had one son of his deceased wife. 
This boy spent most of his time away from home and had lived a 
wild life. We were welcomed by the family and particularly by 
Brother Lindsay who had seen better days. I think he was a 
merchant but had failed in business and had taken up farming. He 
was a tenant but occupied a better home than a good many of the 
people. Paint was not in very common use at the time and his home 
as I remember needed painting very badly. Notwithstanding this 
and their big family of young children and their very limited 
resources, they were always ready to share what they did have with 
the missionaries. 

Henry Lindsay told an interesting story. George Teasdale and 
John R. Winder had been missionaries in Tennessee. They were 
called the “long and short of Mormonism” because Brother Teas- 
dale, who later became an apostle, was very tall, and John Winder, 
as he was called, was very short. Brother Lindsay related that he 
had seen a tall, dark-complexioned man and a smaller one in a 
dream coming to his house, and when he saw these two mission- 
aries, he recognized them as the men he had seen in the dream 
and was readily converted to Mormonism and was baptized. The 
missionaries remained in that part of the country only a few weeks, 
then they moved on to Surry County, and Brother Lindsay related 
that he had not seen a member of the Church since. While his faith 
was still clear, there was some slight evidence of embarrassment 
in participating in carrying on our Mormon propaganda, but his 
faith was sufficient and he stayed with us, or more correctly, we 
stayed and lived with him whatever his embarrassment might have 
been. The result was that I finally baptized his wife and all of his 
children, including his oldest son Millard. He also had a daughter 
who subsequently became the wife of Bishop Edward Ashton of 
the old Fifteenth Ward. There were two other daughters who 
subsequently married in Salt Lake City, and a son named Brigham, 


a real lump of a youngster who had been born after the father had 
joined the Church. 

We spent about six weeks on that trip and then returned to 
Surry. Shortly thereafter Brothers Beck and Spence went home, 
leaving the two new missionaries alone, but we thought we could 
get along all right. 

I well remember planning a trip to go to Winston-Salem and 
from there follow the railroad westward to Brother Lindsay’s. Both 
my companion and I were practically out of money, but in the last 
home we stayed at, a widow gave me seven dollars, which was 
remarkable. I never needed on my entire mission as I did for that 
trip and the seven dollars (with the little other we had) financed 
us on that long trip through a section of country that was un- 
friendly and more inhospitable than any other I traveled through 
on my mission. 

At Salisbury, I learned of a family of Moyles at Gold Hill, so 
we went there and found a very nice family of my own name from 
Cornwall, England, the country in which Father and their fathers 
were born. They had been attracted to Gold Hill originally because 
of gold mining there. The widow and her children were all rather 
superior in appearance and otherwise to those surrounding them. 
In 1924, when in Washington at the death of President Wilson, I 
discovered in the papers that one of a little group of cadets who 
were guarding the body of President Wilson was a very fine and 
attractive young man named Moyle. He proved to be one of these 
Gold Hill Moyles. 16 

We were unable to hold a meeting in Winston or anywhere on 
the trip to Salisbury, and we had to go to a hotel to get a bed. That 
was the only trip while on my mission that I rode on a railroad 
train and there was no other public means of travel in that part of 
the country. All my traveling except that was on foot. I kept a 
record of it and it ran into the thousands of miles. 

1 shall never forget one day we traveled on a muddy, slippery 
road in a continuous rain. James A. Barlow, my old schoolmate, 
was my companion. One had an oilcloth coat and the other an 
umbrella and the rain went through both. I never sang very much, 

,r ’ Memorandum dated Feb. 1933, Box 9, fd 3. See Sessions, “View of James 
Henry Moyle,” pp. 4-6. 

Chapter 3 

but we must have sung our hymns dozens of times during the day. 
Sometimes when it was very slippery and the rain very bad, we 
would close ranks and both get under the umbrella with our arms 
locked and frequently we literally skated over the red, sticky soil 
of North Carolina. At night we had difficulty finding a resting 
place. Finally a German farmer took us in, and the rain turned to 
a cold snow during the night. The room was extremely cold. He 
gave us a bed consisting of pillows and two feather beds, which 
were not made for men as large as Brother Barlow and myself. He 
was the taller and larger of the two so we had to lie spoon-fashion 
to keep our feet covered. When we got tired and wanted a change, 
we had to notify the other in order not to expose our feet. We were 
happy, however, and undaunted and always ready to press on. 
With the assistance of splendid companions, 1 led the way in 
opening up new fields of labor to such an extent that when I left 
the mission, there were thirteen Utah elders in the North Carolina 
Conference where there never before had been more than two 

I baptized seventeen people in Burke County, the Lindsay 
family and Jasper Wise, a neighbor who lived two or three miles 
away and the father of a family. I also baptized William Park who 
had a good farm on the Catawba. He and more especially his wife 
were of comparatively well-to-do families. We also baptized Sister 
Park’s sister and her husband, a young couple with two or three 
children. The Parks moved to Rigby, Idaho, and the other family 
moved to Oregon. 

A Wealth of Experience 

We made repeated trips from Surry County to Burke County 
and preached wherever opportunity presented itself. We had 
many unusual experiences, one of which I will relate. In Wilkes 
County we were unsuccessful in finding a place to stay. It was dark 
and about nine o’clock. Just as we were commencing to feel 
somewhat hopeless, we saw a light in the distance and moved in 
that direction. As we approached it, a man drove up in his buggy. 
He proved to be a Major Hampton, a member of the state 
legislature who was very prominent and well-to-do in the locality. 
After we told him who we were and what we wanted, he invited us 
in. We were hungry as bears, and there was a spread on the table 



awaiting him. It was a splendid dinner and we helped him dispose 
of it, and ever after he was our faithful friend, although he did not 
express any desire to become a member of the Church. But he was 
deeply impressed with our sincerity and message. 

I had one strange experience with a dream. Four missionaries 
were sent to me one time. I induced a friend to take me with his 
team over the Blue Ridge Mountains to Withville to pick them up 
and bring them back to Surry. On our way there at the ridge of 
the mountains was the little village of Hillsville. We stopped over 
night at the crude hotel there. In that hotel I had a dream in which 
I learned that we had a branch of the Church in South Carolina. I 
had the name of the place perfectly clear in my mind and for fear 
that I would forget it, 1 got up and tried to light the lamp or candle 
but could not find a match. I felt sure that I was awake, although 
of that I am not absolutely certain, but at all events I concluded 
that I was awake and that I could not forget the name of the place, 
because I had been so anxious to go to South Carolina and had 
appealed to President Morgan to let me do so. He had forbidden 
it because of the danger, for it was generally understood that the 
South Carolinians were an extremely hotheaded people who 
would go to the greatest extremes to expose the Church. But even 
with all of this, when I awoke in the morning I could not remember 
the place in which I felt morally certain we were going to have a 
branch of the Church, even though it was my understanding that 
the Gospel had never been preached in South Carolina. 

When we arrived in Withville and picked up these four mis- 
sionaries, I discovered that President Morgan, in response to my 
appeals, had sent them with the privilege of having two of them 
go into South Carolina. So I sent two of the new elders, without 
previous experience, to South Carolina where I was sure we were 
going to organize a branch of the Church. Soon after these elders 
had become accustomed to the new country, they started out and 
spent several days traveling in South Carolina with no success or 
apparent prospects for success, but they finally landed in a locality 
where there was a Baptist church. They subsequently succeeded in 
baptizing the preacher and a considerable number of his flock and 
did organize a substantial branch in fulfillment of my dream. 

I had one other dream while I was on my mission which was 
worthy of note. I saw the buildings and more distinctly the tobacco 


Chapter 3 

barns on the Tar River in eastern North Carolina where there were 
Latter-day Saints. I directed the mission to send two elders into 
that locality and advised them of my dream and that they would 
find and probably baptize members of the Church on the Tar 
River. Elmer Johnson, a native of the Fifteenth Ward, was one of 
the two missionaries. I do not remember the name of the other. 
They succeeded in baptizing two people on the Tar River and thus 
the work was opened up in the eastern part of the state where the 
Gospel had never been preached before. All the work ever done 
in the state previously was in the western part just east of the Blue 
Ridge in Surry and Stokes Counties. 

Another interesting experience was when we made a trip from 
the home of the family of William Park to his son and daughter- 
in-law who were living near Charlotte on the southern edge of 
North Carolina. It was very warm weather and it took us several 
days to get there. One day we walked about thirty miles in the 
broiling sun and my feet were blistered, but we were happy and 
succeeded in holding a little meeting in Charlotte and were 
entertained by the young Park family. There was no door between 
the room in which we slept and that of the Parks. They went to 
bed long after we did and undoubtedly thought we were asleep, 
and I could hear them whispering to each other. One said, “Did 
you notice the light around his head as he was speaking?” They 
joined the Church and moved to Rigby, but returned and after, I 
understand, left the Church. 

I had been in the mission field about a year when Charley 
Brain from the Twentieth Ward, and his companion challenged 
the preachers wherever they went to debate and had one accept. 
They had only been out about six months, and the preacher had 
been educated for the ministry and had made his living by preach- 
ing for ten years or more. Charley was frightened so he asked, on 
account of his inexperience, that I should take his place, I being 
the “experienced” preacher. It was well up in the Blue Ridge at a 
place not far from Mt. Pisgah in McDowell County. Charley had 
been a stenographer and had had some experience in reporting 
so he went prepared to take down what was said at the debate. 
When we arrived at the schoolhouse where the debate was to take 
place, a mob had gathered and we were informed that the preacher 
was not going to meet us and that we were not going to hold the 



meeting. The schoolhouse was closed to us. It was in an open 
clearing surrounded by timber with a country road running 
nearby. There was quite a crowd present, so we rolled a pretty good 
size stone to a convenient place and I stood on it and addressed 
the crowd, calling their attention to the prediction of the Savior: 
“They will drive you from synagogue to synagogue and from city 
to city and will kill you.” It was a singular and unique experience 
in which we won the sympathy and friendship of the crowd. 1 ' 

I had a close scrape with a mob at a little mountain school- 
house typical of that part of the country and surrounded by heavy 
timber. It was a small building with no glass or floor. It did have 
wooden shutters and a door and some seats made of slabs with the 
rough side down. We held a meeting there with only two men 
present and about ten women and children. Brother Barlow was 
speaking when we heard a great noise of men shouting and horses 
galloping into the clearing around the schoolhouse. They suddenly 
stopped riding but continued to yell and hoot. Apparently in great 
folly, 1 got up and went out to them alone and walked up to the 
leader who was in the front and faced him so that he could have 
struck me had he tried. I looked him firmly in the face and said, 
“We are holding a religious meeting here and you men must not 
disturb us.” 1 said no more but steadily looked at him. He said 
nothing and looked completely amazed. I then turned and was very 
glad of the opportunity of returning. I had no sooner gotten into 
the house and sat down when they yelled again, jumped on their 
horses and away they went. Just as Brother Barlow finished speak- 
ing and it was my turn, they returned with more noise than ever. 
They tied their horses and came up to the door. I was speaking 
near it with the benches facing the door. I immediately and with 
great coolness and firmness asked the leader to come in and sit 
down. He faced the little group, hesitated, and finally did. Then I 
got the others in (probably eight or ten of them). The last one was 
so drunk that he laid upon the floor and went to sleep. I continued 
with my address, never taking my eyes off the leader. I preached 
to him with great earnestness. At the conclusion of the meeting he 
came up and offered his hand and said, “You are different from 
what I supposed.” I do not remember the exact expression, but it 

17 Memorandum dated Feb. 1933, Box 9, fd 3. See John 16:2. 


Chapter 3 

was to the effect that he admired us and wanted to be a friend. He 
related to our friends afterwards that they were not drunk enough 
at first to go through with their promise to the local Baptist deacon 
that for a gallon of whiskey they would mob us, so they were 
compelled to go back, drink more, and then come back deter- 
mined to do it. 

Before I arrived in North Carolina, Elders Beck and Spence 
had been driven away from the frame schoolhouse where they had 
been holding meetings in Stokes County. An armed mob told them 
that if they returned they would be killed. Before they left the 
mission, I sent out notices that we would hold a meeting at that 
place. At the time there were not many present, because they 
expected trouble. As we gathered at the meetingplace the mob 
came out of the nearby wood. We had a member of the Church 
named Sister McDaniels, whose husband was not a member but a 
well-to-do and influential two-horse farmer, and another lady 
member of the Church named Witte. Her husband, Lindsay, also 
was not a member of the Church. He was a carpenter and rather 
a substantial man also. The two women and their husbands were 
present and the two men went out and met the mob. McDaniels, 
not a religious man but a Bible believer, challenged the mob and 
said if they disturbed us he would spend his farm if necessary to 
prosecute them. They had quite an excited interview that finally 
resulted in their leaving and our holding our meeting. 

Epilogue to the Southern States 

During the World War when I was Assistant Secretary of the 
Treasury, 1 visited all of the South Atlantic Coast states in the 
interest of Liberty Loan bonds and war saving stamps. For some 
unknown reason I attracted more attention and interest in North 
Carolina than anywhere else. In Asheville all the banks in western 
North Carolina assembled and gave me a great banquet at the 
leading hotel and paid all honor to me. At Winston-Salem, the big 
tobacco center of the United States, we held a gathering in the 
county courthouse which was crowded and in which I spoke with 
unusual freedom. At the conclusion of the meeting, a great many 
came forward and sought the opportunity of shaking hands. One 
old man with a long, patriarchal beard without a smile looked into 
my face and said solemnly and deliberately, “I never expected to 



see you again.” He proved to be Sister Witte’s husband. The crowd 
was pressing on and I held on to his hand with my left hand, never 
dreaming that he would leave me. The moment that the crowd had 
passed on I turned to find him and he was gone. I told the lawyer 
in charge how much I was interested in the man and how anxious 
I was to see him. They sent men out to try to find him but they 
could not. The next day I was entertained royally, driven around 
the city and to every possible place where this man could have been 
found, but I could learn nothing of him. He appeared and disap- 
peared in such a mysterious way that I have almost wondered if it 
was all real. 

On my return to Washington, I wrote President Callis of the 
Southern States Mission to ascertain whether there was such a 
person in North Carolina, but he was unable to find him. As a 
matter of fact, we had no elders in that locality. I have since made 
further inquiry, but have been unable to find the man, much as I 
would have appreciated doing so.'“ 

The greatest lesson I learned on that mission was that you 
cannot find God by searching. It is the gift of God to know Him. 
You can only prepare yourself for worthiness to know Him. It 
comes by prayer, communion with Him, and living for it. It came 
to me in the woods of North Carolina when I knelt with my 
companion and alone in humble supplication for light, guidance, 
and a knowledge of Him. He often was the only friend to whom 
we could look or make an appeal. Religious mobs were rampant 
and looking for Mormon elders, believing that they could render 
service to their Christian God by ridding the country of our 
presence, and thereby save their Christian neighbors from the 
delusions of false prophets. It was there when in the adjoining state 
of Georgia, Joseph Standing, another boy missionary, was mur- 
dered because he would not heed the demand of such a mob to 
cease preaching the Gospel of our Savior: faith, repentance, bap- 
tism for the remission of sins, and leading a Christian and Godly 
life. This was just before Elder William Berry and his companions 
in another adjoining state, Tennessee, were likewise murdered in 
cold blood. We never knew where we were going to eat and did 

1 Memorandum dated Feb. 1933, Box 9, fd 3. See Sessions, “View of James 
Henry Moyle,” pp. 40-41. 


Chapter 3 

not know where we would sleep at night. We were traveling among 
people who were universally religious and naturally hospitable, but 
we suffered from a prejudice and hatred that is now almost 
inconceivable. Additionally, homes were scarce, woods abounded, 
and travel was rare on the lonesome roads. We sometimes traveled 
on foot in the broiling of the sun of North Carolina for thirty miles 
in one day simply to find a single friend. Frequently, we made a 
meal of wild strawberries, or of hazelnuts growing in the forest, 
and once on uncooked field corn in the milky stage; one large ear 
tasted good, but my stomach rebelled against the next." 

Such were the conditions under which I labored for nearly 
twenty-eight months, most of the time in the backwoods of the 
Blue Ridge Mountains and the hill country east of them. Most of 
the folks lived in crude log cabins, sometimes with neither glass 
windows nor floors other than mother earth. We frequently 
preached in schoolhouses with no windows, except wooden shut- 
ters on hinges. There were no floors in them either and the 
benches were made of slabs with the sawed side up and supported 
only by strong posts fitted into auger holes in the slabs. We slept 
in homes of good, intelligent people where a family of five or six 
lived in a single room, with the chinking only sufficient to keep the 
cold wind out. I was proud to baptize one such family of excellent 
people who are now numbered among the finest citizens of Salem, 
Oregon. Remember, 1879 was only fourteen years after the Civil 
War and poverty prevailed, even among people who had been 
slaveowners, and landholders. Tenants were barely able to pay rent 
of any consequence. 1 met strong young men who worked for sixty 
dollars a year with board. It was common for women to wash all 
day, scrubbing with their hands, for twenty-five cents. There were 
few horses in North Carolina, though on the west side of the Blue 
Ridge they were more abundant. There was no bluegrass on the 
east side and very little limestone, which was quite different from 
Tennessee and Kentucky. That was one reason why we very rarely 
rode horses. Railroads were also scarce, and I only rode once on 
a train. It was the only one in western North Carolina, and many 
people there had never seen an iron horse. 

19 Undated memorandum. Box 8, fd 3. See Marshall Wingfield, “Tennessee’s 
Mormon Massacre,” Tennessee Historical Quarterly 17 (Mar. 1958): 1-35. 



It was under such humble and sometimes dangerous condi- 
tions that I was brought into such a spiritual status and nearness 
to Deity that I received a testimony of the existence of God and 
His Work that I believe nothing could remove. If it had not been 
such I am not sure that I could have remained steadfast in the face 
of political trials which I went through in the 1890s and early years 
of this century. Beyond the shadow of a doubt, I would have been 
governor of Utah and United States Senator but for the opposition 
of Church leaders, and what we called “Church influence.” I deeply 
regret to say that if I am to be frank, much of it still exists. I have 
consistently stated my position on politics, and as with religion, I 
never have and do not expect ever to deviate from that position. 
This I say in the face of the fact that I am completely and perfectly 
satisfied that divine inspiration continues to guide in all the 
fundamentals of the great latter-day work of the Church of Jesus 
Christ and that it will go on triumphantly. It, however, is now going 
through its greatest test of endurance, greater than poverty, mob 
violence, the burning of homes, the confiscating and robberies of 
homes and all earthly possessions, and even the meeting and 
suffering of death by the leaders and fathers, and greater than 
being driven from civilization. The present test is that of wealth, 
prosperity in material things, and perhaps the most dangerous of 
all, popularity. 20 

20 Undated memorandum. Box 8, fd 3. 


Chapter 4 


After returning from my mission, I went to Deseret University in 
the spring. I then went to work on the Temple Block, and before 
September 1 had saved $500 for law school. Father would do the 
rest. But I had other problems to overcome. 1 

The Legal Profession in Utah 

Prominent young Mormons who had studied law in the East, 
or at least who went east before 1882, were Alfales Young (Univer- 
sity of Michigan), a son of Brigham who later left the Church; 
LeGrand Young, son of Dr. Seymour B. Young and a nephew of 
Brigham; 2 and Bruce Taylor, a son of President John Taylor. Bruce 
also left the Church and moved to the Northwest. Zera Snow, son 
of Judge Zerubbabel Snow, also left the Church and the territory 
at about the same time Taylor did. Neither of them was still in Utah 
by 1885, but I do not know when they left. Joseph L. Rawlins, son 
of Bishop Joseph S. Rawlins of South Cottonwood, studied in the 
East but not law, even though he became a practicing lawyer. He 
also left the Church. Parley L. Williams was of Mormon parentage 
but claimed never to have been baptized. He was always bitterly 

1 Memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd 2; James Henry Moyle Collection, 
Library-Archives, Historical Department, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 
Salt Lake City, hereinafter cited as CLA. All references hereinafter to box and folder 
(fd) are for items from this collection. 

2 Memorandum dated Mar. 1942, Box 9, fd 5. LeGrand Young was actually the 
son of Joseph Young and the brother of Seymour B. Young. 


Chapter 4 


anti-Mormon in my time. LeGrand Young and Franklin S. 
Richards were the only two active leading Mormon lawyers in Salt 
Lake City in 1885. Consequently, both served as Church attorney. 

Other Mormons practicing law in the city in 1885 were 
Aurelius Miner, Scipio Africanus Kenner, and Sidney Darke. 
Miner was not very active in his practice because he was a polyga- 
mist and was thus disqualified. Kenner was a man of natural 
brilliance. He had picked up law on the side somehow, and he also 
did some newspaper work sometimes. He was clever and could 
have gone further but he drank too much. Darke’s office was in 
the rear of Swanner’s Jewelry Store on Main Street. He also picked 
up the profession on the side, and like Kenner practiced chiefly in 
the police court as well as probate and justice’s courts. The judges 
there were often not even lawyers themselves. 

Don Carlos Young, another of Brigham’s sons, was the only 
Mormon I knew of going away to study a profession other than 
law, except for Willard and Feramorz Young who went to the 
military academies. West Point and Annapolis were privileges 
reserved for the bluebloods. I was a Fifteenth Ward clodhopper 
whose lowly status would not justify an attempt to receive an 
appointment to one of the academies. Furthermore, an environ- 
ment existed then so different from that of today that it is now 
difficult to understand its negative influence on education. For 
example, in response to my persistence in getting an education, 
Bishop Pollard said to me, “Jimmy, you are a good boy, but these 
educated men are damned rascals.” 

My Revolutionary Action 

On August 20, 1882, when I asked to be released from my stake 
activities to go east to study law, Angus M. Cannon, president of 
the Salt Lake Stake and brother of George Q. (the leading intellec- 
tual of the Church), said to me in an outburst of protest while 
striking his fist violently on the counter of the county recorder’s 
office, “You will go to Hell!” He was an intelligent, leading citizen 
and churchman, but he was sometimes intemperate as he was on 
this occasion. Some years after my return from school he publicly 
apologized, and still later wanted me to take his son, John M., into 
my office and teach him the law. 

My action was literally revolutionary in the sphere in which I 


lived, for my family was of humble surroundings. But more impor- 
tant was the fact that it was a violation of religious duty to go to 
law with a brother. It was in the environment that Bishop Pollard 
and President Cannon lived; it was a simple life, not complicated 
as it is now. 1 

Injustice to Angus M. Cannon, my proposal was to him like 
dashing cold water in his face out of a clear sky. But as he cooled 
off and as we talked about the matter more deliberately and I 
unfolded to him the service I hoped to render with the advantage 
to myself, he moderated, softened, and advised that I see President 
Taylor. Understandably, however, I was so shaken by his prophecy 
that I would go to Hell that I immediately walked up the block to 
see Bishop Robert T. Burton, whom I highly regarded as I had 
previously regarded Angus M. The effect of the experience was 
that I quickly determined that I would make President Cannon’s 
prophecy a false one. 1 

Bishop Burton suggested that I see President Cannon’s 
brother, George Q., the leading intellectual in the Church leader- 
ship. The latter insisted in turn that I talk to President Taylor 
himself. My only direct contact with President Taylor was on this 
occasion. I presented to him my plans, but President Taylor was 
behind the times, for he said that being a lawyer was a dangerous 
calling. He was logical in his reasoning from the basis of the 
Church's attitude on its members going to law with each other and 
the fact that lawyers would take either side of a controversy. His 
experience and that of the Church was that lawyers had been a 
source of great wrongs and injustice, as well as advantage to the 
right and justice, and therefore the profession was dangerous in 
that an attorney occupied a place of great power in promoting 
both the good and the bad. 

President Taylor and our people generally were not familiar 
with the ethics and high ideals that college law students have 
instilled in them by their teachers and the leaders of the legal 
profession. The history and philosophy of the law and the legal 
profession that have so much to do with its administration were 
and are the exact opposite of what the ordinary layman and 

3 Memorandum dated Mar. 1942, Box 9, fd 5. 

4 Undated memorandum. Box 8, fd 5. 


Chapter 4 

especially a frontier people believed the practice of the law was. 
No other profession has or can have higher or nobler conceptions. 
The study of the law and its history and that of the part which an 
honorable lawyer lakes in its administration constitutes a trust and 
responsibility of the highest order and inspires a loyalty such as no 
other profession equals. ’ 

After some discussion, President Taylor acquiesced and 
agreed to bless me in my decision, and with President Cannon 
assisting, he laid his hands upon my head and gave me the 
following blessing: 

Brother Moyle, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and by the 
virtue of the Holy Priesthood, we lay our hands upon thy head to seal 
upon thee a blessing, upon certain conditions which thou hast thyself 
proposed to attend to. 

As thou has had in thine heart a desire to go forth to study law 
in order that thou mayest become proficient therein, we say unto 
thee that this is a dangerous profession, one that leads many people 
down to destruction; yet if you wilt with clean hands and a pure heart, 
fearing God and working righteousness, and with a desire to maintain 
the truth and to defend the rights of the Church and Kingdom of 
God on the earth;— if thou wilt abstain from arguing falsely and on 
false principles maintaining only the things that can be honorably 
sustained by honorable men, if thou wilt dedicate thyself unto God 
every day and ask for His blessing and guidance, the Lord God will 
bless thee in this calling; and thou shalt be blessed with wisdom and 
intelligence, and with the light of revelation, and thou shalt be an 
instrument in the hands of God to assist, to protect the rights and 
liberties and immunities of His people. But if thou doest not these 
things thou wilt go down and wither away. We therefore set thee apart 
on the conditions that have been mentioned and say unto thee that 
if thou wilt go forth as an Elder of Israel, as a servant of the Living 
God, holding the Holy Priesthood; if thou wilt maintain thine integ- 
rity and be true to Israel God will bless thee and thou shalt be known 
in Israel as an honorable man and thou shalt grow up in virtue, in 
intelligence, in power, in wisdom, and stand as a mighty man among 
the house of Israel and be a defender of the principles of eternal truth 
and of the rights and liberties and immunities of the people of God. 

We set thee apart on these conditions and under these circum- 


5 Memorandum dated Apr.-May 1943, Box 9, fd 7. 


stances, to go forth as thou hast desired to study and become 
acquainted with all the principles of law and equity. And we say unto 
thee: if thou wilt abstain from chicanery and from fraud and from 
covetousness and if thou wilt cleave to the truth, God will bless thee, 
and we bless thee, and seal upon thy head the blessings pronounced 
upon thee in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.’ 

It was because of a lack of knowledge and in the face of a 
profound belief and practice of the Latter-day Saints that it was 
wrong to go to law with a brother that the Brethren very generally 
believed that “lawyer” and “liar” were synonyms as a rule and that 
a truthful, strictly honest lawyer was a rare exception. 

The foregoing is presented injustice to President Taylor and 
the Church leaders who believed in the strictest code of honesty 
and knew but little about the ethics of the educated lawyer. So 
far as I can recall there were very few college-trained lawyers in 
the Church when I was admitted to the bar in 1 885— Aurelius 
Miner, LeGrand Young, Henry H. Rolapp. Rolapp graduated a 
year before I did, LeGrand a few years before that, and Aurelius 
Miner before he came to Utah. There were several Church law- 
yers who were admitted to the bar and actively practicing who 
had acquired their knowledge of the law at home. Among them 
was my benefactor, Franklin Snyder Richards, in whose office in 
Salt Lake City 1 commenced the practice and soon became his 
partner in the firm of Richards and Moyle. He was a very good 
lawyer— city attorney and Church attorney, frequently appearing 
in the Supreme Court of the United Slates. Samuel R. Thurman 
was an active young lawyer in Provo, and possibly Nathan Tanner 
in Ogden. 6 7 

As I look back over the years and survey the changes that 
have taken place and the extremes with which our boys bave 
taken to the legal profession (for I am sure there are more of 
them to our population than in any other community) 1 reached 
the conclusion that I would like to have at least one son a lawyer, 
but that a better field for usefulness now is in the field in industry. 
The legal profession lias become so numerous that comparatively 
few excel in it. Its professional standard is greatly lowered, and 

6 Transcript dated 30 Aug. 1882, Box 6, fd 7. 

7 Memorandum dated Apr.-May 1943, Box 9, fd 7. 


Chapter 4 

many regard it only as a means of making a living without hard 
work and appearing on a work day in the apparel of a gentleman 
of leisure or wealth. Such was not the conceptions of lawyers, 
even those whom our people thought unworthy of commenda- 
tion. When I was a boy, I found they generally had very high 
ideals. There always were shysters and mercenary lawyers, but 
that was not the general tenor of their characters. In my youth 
a lawyer who advertised or solicited employment was not re- 
spected by his fellow lawyers. However, I left my boys to choose 
their own callings, hoping they would follow their natural bent. 
Success in the law is largely measured by the love and respect 
one has for it. Such also is the case with judges in the law. It is 
a sad fact that too many of our judges are not paid for the services 
of a real lawyer, and occupy the position because the small sala- 
ries paid are more than they could earn in their professional 
practice. There are notable exceptions, and some lawyers who 
are unable to make money in the practice of their profession 
make successful judges. But carpenters are paid more . 8 9 

Ann Arbor and George Sutherland 

I arrived at law school with three certificates from President 
John R. Park for college work accomplished in the Deseret Univer- 
sity (the doctor made all he could of it), and provisions for a 
three-year residence in a great American university. I entered a 
new world with the aroma of the sagebrush still in my nostrils and 
a solemn resolve that my ambitions could only be realized by 
never-ending devotion to hard work, for I had determined to do 
five years of work in three years. The door was wide open even for 
me in the greatest center of learning west of the Atlantic, the 
University of Michigan at Ann Arbor . 8 

In all events, I went to the University with a good record 
behind me, except that I had not done much socially. There was 
no young lady in my life in any way attached to me. I regret that 
veiy much. The experience would have helped me in the wider 
field greatly. That lack handicapped me in Ann Arbor and I 


8 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 4. 

9 Undated memorandum, Box 9, fd 2. 


realized it, but 1 was determined to overcome my still lingering 
weakness. 1 " 

1 have always thought, and I believe now, that the first man to 
whom 1 spoke in Ann Arbor was George Sutherland. My memory 
is that I was sitting in the small lobby of Cook’s Hotel, which, by 
the way, was the leading hotel of consequence in the city. The 
fraternity houses were numerous and fine but only for the rich. As 
1 sat there a man whom I thought had just registered came from 
the clerk’s desk into the center of the room. For some reason, I 
liked his appearance. There was that about him that seemed 
familiar to me, almost as if I had seen him before. So I walked over 
and introduced myself to him and to my delight found he was from 
Utah. The meeting was so agreeable that we went out together to 
search for a room." 

We found the Henderson house only two or three blocks 
away and on the road toward the university. It was a nice, good- 
sized, well-built, and well-kept wooden structure, and the house 
of a well-known family. In addition to the father and mother, 
a son and his wife lived there. He owned and operated a shoe 
store. This Mrs. Henderson, a stout but dignified woman, met 
us at the door and said she had two nice rooms to rent at the 
head of the stairs. One of her first questions was, “Where are 
you from?” Utah, of course. Then the unfailing next was, “Are 
you Mormons?” I said, “Yes,” and George said, “No.” She was 
set back some with my answer, but recovered herself soon. She 
afterwards indicated that she thought we looked like nice young 
men anyway, and did not turn us down when we concluded we 
wanted to stay. 

She came to like us both, and 1 made a hit with her by going 

10 Memorandum dated May 1944, Box 10, Id 6. 

11 Memorandum dated Sept. 1945, Box 13, fd 1. See Joel Francis Paschal, Jr., 
Justice Sutherland: A Man Against the State (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 
1951). Concerned primarily with Sutherland’s actions and philosophies as a member 
of the U.S. Supreme Court, Paschal says little about either Sutherland’s Mormon/ 
Utah background or his education at Ann Arbor. There is no mention of Moyle in the 
Paschal book. Incidentally, although as Moyle indicates Sutherland never admitted 
any affiliation with Mormonism, Leonard Arrington maintains that a certificate in the 
LDS church archives proves that the justice was ordained a deacon in the church’s 
Aaronic priesthood. 


Chapter 4 

with her to her Congregational Church. The old gentlemai was 
not so much of a churchgoer. He was more of a politician, thiugh 
not prominent as such. I had some talks with her on religion and 
we came to be the best of friends. 

I stayed there two years, but George left in six month, in 
March I think, which was then the end of the law school yar. I 
entered the law school the next year when the regular school 'ear 
was extended into June. 

Sutherland was fine and clean-cut in appearance, with ine 
morals, intellect, and industry. He was blessed with a logical, Igal 
mind. It was logical and natural for him to find and hold eventully 
a seat on the highest court of the land, and to distinguish hircelf 
there as a great constitutional lawyer. His elevation to the Suprme 
Court from the United States Senate when it occurred was du to 
his intimacy there with Senator (and later President) WarrerG. 
Harding who gave him the appointment. 

George and I were very different, especially in religion nd 
politics. We had no differences in anything else. His parents care 
to Utah as Mormon converts. His father drifted into the Tilic 
Mining District and read law (I presume) and became justice of te 
peace and a lawyer. Thus George read law and was admittedo 
advance standing and the senior class in the University of Michittn 
and graduated in six months . 12 

George and I encouraged each other in our studies. He wotd 
have been invaluable to me if I had been studying law at the tire, 
but we indulged often in arguments that became very heated bch 
as to religion and politics. I was a Mormon; he was not. He was r- 
dently Republican; I was (if possible) moreso Democratic. But te 
really fiercest fight we ever had was in bed one night over his chaf- 
ing Brigham Young and Church leaders with being responsible fr 
the Mountain Meadows Massacre, the most violently unfort una; 
event in Utah’s early history. Neither of us knew much about it, bt 
George had had a full dose of anti-Mormon stories as his father lid 
left the Church. George had attended the Brigham Young Acat 
emy at Provo and was naturally fair-minded or I think we word 
have gotten out of bed and fought the issue to a finish. I thin 

12 Memorandum dated Sept. 1945, Box 13, fd 1. See also memorandum dated 
Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd2. 



George would have gotten the worst of it, because I was stronger 
and very athletic. We were about the same height, but I was a bit 
heavier. As it was we came near to blows anyway, each believing he 
had the story straight, and each maintaining his grounds. 

I was perfectly satisfied then as now of Brigham Young’s 
innocence in the matter. My father was intimate with John R. 
Haslam, Brigham Young’s storekeeper. He had charge of the store 
kept for the family of Brigham Young which was located in the 
rear of the Beehive House. Well, Haslam often repeated the story 
that when Brigham Young did learn that there was danger of a 
massacre he sent him immediately to John D. Lee and others 
urging and directing that the emigrants not be disturbed and be 
permitted to pass through the country unmolested. My father was 
as bitterly opposed to the massacre as a man could be, and would 
have disclosed his doubts if there had been any about Brigham 
Young’s innocence. The fact was that some of the emigrants had 
outraged the feelings of the settlers and the Indians with their 
statements and conduct as related in Utah history. This, together 
with the cupidity of the Indians (and possibly some of the whites), 
led to the horrible tragedy. Some believed that the emigrants had 
even poisoned springs . 11 

George, on the other hand, had imbibed the anti-Mormon 
attitude on the subject that I could not tolerate. President Grant 
was later surprised with my version of George’s attitude, for in 
Provo he had always been moderate, because he, of course, wanted 
to live there and do business with the Mormons. But when you 
sleep with a man six months and eat with him, there is not much 
that does not come to the surface. George knew our people and 
much of their merits and he was always inclined to be decent to 
Mormons, but he was not at all sympathetic with their leaders. He 
got much of this from his father who I am sure was a real “Liberal” 
and anti- rather than pro-Mormon . 5 

13 Memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd 2. See Juanita Brooks, The Moun- 
tain Meadows Massacre (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1950); Ray W. Irwin, 
“The Mountain Meadows Massacre,” Arkansas Historical Quarterly 9 (Spring 1950): 1- 

14 Memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 13, fd 1. See also memorandum dated 
Sept. 1945, Box 13, fd 1. 

15 Memorandum dated Sept. 1945, Box 13, fd 1. “Liberal” in this case means a 


Chapter 4 

The thing that probably kept us from fighting was that George 
was impressed with my physical superiority, inasmuch as I was 
asked (and he was not) to be on the university heavyweight pulling 
team. I was also distinguishing myself physically in another sport 
between the classes which was not football, for that required too 
much time for training, but it was similar in that a football was 
tossed up in the air in front of both classes and the winner carried 
the ball the greatest distance. I was good in both. In those contests 
my head was bruised, some shirts torn off, and actual damage done 
to my limbs. They were really no more than mass brawls. Rushing 
was common, which was also a barbaric practice that occurred not 
only on the campus between classes, but at other places, notably 
the post office, where conglomerate crowds gathered. On one 
occasion, a lumber partition in the post office was badly damaged. 

The physical contests between classes were fierce. 1 well re- 
member one in which we marched through the streets boisterously 
until the police tried to stop us. We ignored them, taking the law 
into our own hands. Finally, we equipped ourselves with the 
pickets from a fence we passed, destroying many of them by 
pulling and breaking them off. When that operation was over we 
cooled off and wiser heads secured an end of hostilities, and we 
dispersed. Well, George did not engage in these brutalities, but I 
was in the thickest of it; George knew I was not inclined to avoid 
a fight. 

That period included another real barbarity, now fortunately 
nearly forgotten— college hazing. It really meant vicious things in 
those days. In Ann Arbor it was not rare for a gang to enter a 
student’s room and take him forcibly and if need be violently to 
some place like Ypsilanti miles away in the dead of night, and let 
him walk back. They might duck him severely in water, embarrass 
him by undressing him, or even by beating him brutally and doing 
the last thing you would think college men would do. 

A Mormon Among Mormons 

All that was very new to us, though we were from the “wild 
and woolly West.” We had heard stories that made George very 
fearful, because he thought I would be hazed without doubt to the 


member of the anti-Mormon political party in Utah, or a subscriber to its principles. 


embarrassment of both of us, because he could not induce me to 
cease talking Mormonism. The newspapers were filled with anti- 
Mormon stuff, mostly against polygamy. At that time. Mormon 
polygamists were going to the penitentiary almost daily. There was 
real excitement over the matter; the clergy was extremely active in 
the crusade."’ But my entire life until statehood was one of protest 
against the ills of prejudice, misunderstanding, and persecution. 
Rather than stop discussing Mormonism, I decided to resist any 
hazing and prepared for it by carrying heavy hickory canes I fully 
determined to use if attacked. The barbarity, however, was fast 
disappearing by then. 1, 

George and I sat together one time in the Ann Arbor Opera 
House joined together in a political campaign meeting in which 
the very prominent Congressman Hoar of Michigan was the 
speaker. Among other rash things, he related a conversation with 
George Q. Cannon, the delegate from Utah at the time and one 
of the heads of the Church. Then he said in his most vehement 
way, “Constitution or no Constitution, Mormonism will be 
crushed or destroyed.” I do not now remember anything else he 
said, but my blood literally boiled. George was quiet, but his mind 
was too fair and legal to endorse that kind of rhetoric. 

I did not go out of the way to defend or promote Mormonism, 
neither did I shrink from the duty as I saw it to defend it when it 
was attacked, and I was very frequently questioned about it. In the 
place of surrendering or lowering my standard, 1 purchased two 
of the best substantial walking canes that I placed where most 
conveniently available, and I assured George that nothing could 
prevent a real fight if there was any opportunity for it. George, for 
one, was satisfied that I could and would fight. As it turned out I 
never had to use those canes. Conversely, I made many friends by 
defending my unpopular people. This was never better illustrated 
than in my last year in Ann Arbor when I defended the Church in 
the Webster Debating Society as a candidate for its presidency and 
won the election because of my defense. 

Fergus “Ferg” Ferguson came along several weeks after Suth- 

16 Memorandum dated Sept. 1945, Box 13, fd 1. See Orma Linford, “The Mor- 
mons and the Law: The Polygamy Cases,” Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin, 1964. 

17 Memorandum dated May 1943, Box 10, fd 1. 


Chapter 4 

erland and I arrived. He was bright and apparently well-equiped 
naturally. I think, in fact, that he really was gifted and could hve 
gotten anywhere if he had valued my motto, that work will get ou 
anywhere, and idleness nowhere worthwhile. He was very agee- 
able— anyone could get along with him. He was very naturdly 
sociable and engaging. He consequently formed kindred asstci- 
ates who spent too much time in the pool rooms and beer hals. 
He could carry more beer than the next man and he repored 
occasionally that he had been out till after midnight and left tie 
other boys under the table, but that he did not drink too muih. 
He was too much of a jolly good fellow to be a good student ir 
lawyer. He even ran out of friends before the short school year wts 
over and went home, notwithstanding the fact that he got alotg 
fairly well without studying much, especially at first. But as tine 
went on, he had more trouble and found fault with his teaches’ 
lessons. He really had some good ideas and I felt what a shame it 
was that he had it all over me in only needing to study a little to 
get along very well. 

My bank account was meager but I loaned Ferg a substantial 
part of his fare home and went without some in consequence of 
it, but I always liked him. His father was a bright, self-made lawyer. 
1 am not sure that he was admitted to the bar. He (the father) was 
a Mormon and had two families. Ferg paid no attention to religion, 
but was really a fine fellow and naturally a popular character. He 
became county clerk of Salt Lake County in the 1890s under the 
Liberal Party regime. He married one of our brightest and leading 
young ladies, Jeannette Sharp, daughter of Bishop John Sharp. He 
left a bright, fine young family when he died. He was loved, I am 
sure, by those who knew him years since because of his many 
splendid qualities. Miss Sharp and her father visited him in Ann 
Arbor. It was easy to see that she loved him, for he was easy to love. 
His virtues were many, but his life is the best example I have ever 
known of how little may be accomplished by one most richly 
endowed by nature. Nevertheless, Ferguson was always a gentle- 
man, never a bum or degenerate, and did not become a drunkard, 
though I think he always drank. ls 

I had determined after President Taylor’s blessing to avoid 


18 Memorandum dated Sept. 1945, Box 13, fd 1. 


every semblance of taking the wrong course in life. That should 
modify some of the condemnation I deserve for my puritanical 
frame of mind in dealing with Henry H. Rolapp’s dereliction in 
falling with the boys in Michigan whom 1 would not. I had 
determined to shun the appearance of evil or any of the avenues 
to it. 1 " Ironically, I was given greater attention and just as friendly 
consideration as that conferred upon Rolapp, George Sutherland, 
Waldemar Van Cott, David Evans, and H. S. Laney, all of Mormon 
origin but not professing to be Mormons. This was true notwith- 
standing the fact that all of the gentlemen named were excellent 
students, and were recognized as men of promise. The last one, 
Laney, made an extreme effort to have it known that he was not a 
Mormon, although his father was a member of the Church in 
Missouri and his people had suffered at the Haim’s Mill massacre. 
His effort to disabuse all of his connections with the Church, 
however, did not promote his popularity, although he otherwise 
bore a good name. 

In Defense of Mormonism 

In the law school there were held each year a moot Congress 
and a political convention for the nomination of presidential 
officers. In these I was recognized as a leader, for my missionary 
work had better equipped me than most for delivering addresses 
and taking part in discussions. The university also provided the 
law school with rooms in the University Building for two debating 
clubs, the Webster and the Jeffersonian. The former was the older 
and more prominent, and I became a member of the same. It was 
customary to elect a senior at the beginning of each school year 
president of the club, and my friends urged me to run. The custom 
was to have a discussion at each weekly meeting in which two led 
on each side in a debate, followed by a general debate. The night 
before the election the subject was changed at the instigation of 
iny opponents to the subject of “Mormonism and Polygamy” for 
the sole purpose of embarrassing me and my candidacy, for they 
knew that I would meet such issues without hesitance. 

On the night of the debate, and at the conclusion of the 

19 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 5. See diary entries dated 8 Mar., 26-27 
Mar., 29 Mar. 1884, Box 1, fd 3. 


Chaptkr 4 

opening debate, a member called the name of Moyle, knowing 
that I would respond, which I did. I believe I then gave the best 
address I had ever delivered. I appeared at exceptional advantage 
because a man named Summers, a clever student who had studied 
for the ministry and who soon after graduation became district 
attorney in Illinois, asked plying questions that I was completely 
accustomed to meeting on my mission, and for which I had very 
pertinent answers. 1 won my points handily and to the very great 
discomfort of my antagonists. This naturally resulted in the stock 
of James H. Moyle being greatly increased, and I was so respected 
for my courage in defending the most unpopular people in the 
country that I was elected with a good majority. Attorney W. R. 
Hutchinson of Salt Lake City was the candidate of the Ohio 
students. But the result of that meeting made him a life-long 
friend. A fellow who later became a prominent railroad lawyer 
in Milwaukee voiced the sentiments of many when he said that 
he was very much prejudiced against the Mormons, but that 
anyone who would stand up for them, and acquit himself as I 
did, commanded his admiration. He added that he felt to vote 
against me would be to submit to the charge of being narrow, if 
not bigoted. 

In the moot Congress and national conventions, the students 
were divided into local groups. Those coming from west of the 
Mississippi River were known as the trans-Mississippi boys, and 
constituted the largest single unit. Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and 
Michigan each constituted a separate unit, and had many stu- 
dents in this school. The states from the East and South combined 
constituted another. I was always the favorite candidate of the 
trans-Mississippi boys for the highest honors, and when it came 
to electing class officers, I was their candidate for president of 
the class, an honor regarded as the highest distinction in the 
university. I proved to be the most popular candidate of the 
several divisions, so much that they were unable to make a com- 
bination against me in favor of any one of the candidates of the 
respective divisions. This resulted in a deadlock. I was finally 
defeated on the thirty-ninth ballot by the introduction of a dark 
horse. A history is kept of the class organization, and many of 
those who voted against me said that if I would accept any other 



office, they would support me, but they did not want a Mormon 
to be president of the class.'" 

The Democratic National Convention of 1884 

In keeping with my father’s desire that I get a political educa- 
tion, 21 he arranged for me to go to the Democratic National 
Convention in Chicago during the summer of 1884 as a correspon- 
dent of the Salt Lake Herald. I witnessed every second of that 
convention and during the adjournments between sessions spent 
all my time in the headquarters of the presidential candidates. The 
most exciting events in the convention were the fierce and vicious 
attacks of Tammany Hall, then all-powerful in New York Demo- 
cratic state politics and in New York City. It attacked Grover 
Cleveland under the leadership of Boss Kelly and on the floor of 
the convention through its eloquent and fiery Irish orators. Nev- 
ertheless, I will never forget the final speaker in favor of Cleveland 
who brought the jammed convention into an uproarious, un- 
bounded, clapping, shouting, feet-stamping, flag-waving riot by his 
closing sentence: “We love him for the enemies he has made.” 22 

Utah’s theocratic democracy, from its inception to its dissolu- 
tion with the Peoples Party in 1891, elected, as all territories did, a 
delegate to Congress. And with absolute uniformity, the delegate 
from Utah sat on the Democratic side of the House of Repre- 
sentatives, and there was never the slightest agitation in the Peo- 
ples Party for its delegates to sit on the Republican side. Even the 
two or three ex-Whigs among the leaders did not in their hearts 
want the delegate to sit with the Republicans or to cohabit with the 
carpetbag federal officials of the territory either in Washington or 
in Utah. If the delegate had done so, his defeat in the next election 
would have been certain. When I went to the University of Michi- 
gan in 1882, and particularly when I entered the law school in 1883 
where politics were rampant, I was at once one of its most enthusi- 
astic Democrats, with Democracy born and bred in me as fully as in 

20 Memorandum dated Mar. 1932, Box 9, fd 3. 

21 See James Moyle to James Henry Moyle, 25 Dec. 1882, Box 3, fd 1; Gene A. 
Sessions, ed., “Biographies and Reminiscences from the James Henry Moyle Collec- 
tion,” unpublished manuscript, CLA, sec. 14, letter 5. 

22 Memorandum dated Feb.-Apr. 1944, Box 10, fd 6. See James H. Moyle, “Tam- 
many Hall,” The Contributor, Oct. 1884, 35-39. 


Chapter 4 

any. That enthusiasm was exhibited by my being one of a very few 
students who attended the Democratic state convention held in 
Detroit in 1884, and so great was my exhibition of enthusiasm that 
1 was invited by the co-chairman with his headquarters in Ann Ar- 
bor to be a speaker in the campaign. My breeding was solely in the 
Democratic atmosphere of Utah years before an organized “Sage- 
brush Democracy,” and 1 was typical of young Mormons who gave 
any thought to politics. Democracy was practically universal 
among them. 1 did not know in those days of a solitary Mormon 
boy who was Republican, except Frank J. Cannon who had to run 
away from home to get it in San Francisco where he worked on the 
Chronicle, a Republican paper. And even he ultimately became a 
Democrat here at home. I was a typical Mormon Democrat, so I not 
only availed myself of the first opportunity to attend a Democratic 
national convention, but I spent every second of the duration of 
the 1884 convention in Chicago that first nominated Cleveland 
just sixty years ago. And there was no one in that convention who 
took a deeper interest in it. I spent every evening until midnight in 
the headquarters of the candidates, and especially at that of the 
man who was dubbed the “noblest Roman of them all,” Allen G. 
Thurman, the common man of Ohio who was bitterly opposed by 
wealth and the privileged class. Mighty, rousing, and fiery meetings 
were held in his headquarters," ' the scene of the greatest activity. 
There was more or less continuous oratory there every evening un- 
til a late hour due to which I spent more time there than anywhere 
else. It was the most exciting of all. It was claimed and proclaimed 
excitedly that Thurman was the choicest idol of Democracy and 
with the common people and that nothing but money could stop 

Ben Butler was the most colorful of all the exhibitions both on 
the streets and in the convention. His presence on the street from 
hotel or headquarters to the convention was always announced by 
a brass band and shouting mob, and his entry into the convention 
hall was equally boisterous. Ben’s history was colorful and success- 
ful. Samuel Tilden started his legal career in Butler’s office. 

23 Memorandum dated May 1944, Box 10, fd 6. See Mark W. Cannon, “The 
Mormon Issue in Congress, 1872-1882, Drawing on the Experience of Territorial Dele- 
gate George Q. Cannon,” Ph.D diss., Harvard University, 1960. 



The 1884 Democratic Convention was so fierce and exciting 
to me who had never heard of serious internal opposition in the 
Peoples Party at home or in the Liberal Party, so far as intra-party 
matters were concerned. The N. V. Jones vs. A. M. Cannon flare-up 
was the first I had heard of in Salt Lake."' When sixteen, I had 
attended the second precinct Peoples Party political primary, 
which was a rare thing for a boy then. The senior brethren then 
ran such things, or in other words, the ruling members of the 
priesthood— stake presidency, high council, and bishops. But I was 
greatly interested."' 

Thurman was very popular with the average man of his state 
and I gained die impression he was a really splendid Democratic 
character and would make a fine President of the common man. 
I think ourjudge S. R. Thurman was remotely related. There were 
other candidates, but the three (Cleveland, Thurman, and Butler) 
attracted my attention. My impression of Ben Butler was that he 
was a fine and able lawyer, but wealthy and loud, though I do not 
recall his speaking, nor that of Thurman. Thurman was popular, 
but not with the wealthy class, and Butler was not a very serious 
contender though popular. The story of his appropriating to 
himself in early days “silver spoons” used at some banquet was 
given damaging publicity.® 

After I returned from Chicago I became very active and 
prominent in the 1884 college politics at the university. It was then 
that I was made president of the Webster Debating Society of the 
law school and was candidate for senior class president as the 
candidate of the trans-Mississippi law students. I had led the riot 

24 Memorandum dated Feb.-Apr. 1944, Box 19, fd 6. The “Jones-Cannon flare 
up” probably refers to some verbal altercation between the two molluscan leaders of 
the People’s Party, which was unusual because of the ecclesiastical nature of the party 
leadership. Moyle has already provided some idea of Cannon’s fiery nature in this 
chapter. Nathaniel V. Jones, for his part, was arrested and tried several times for physi- 
cal assault. See Journal History of the Church, CLA, 10 Jan. 1870, p. 1; 3 Mar. 1870, 

p. 2; 14 Aug. 1874, p. 1; 17 Aug. 1874, p. 1; 19 Aug. 1874, p. 4; 1 Sept. 1874, p. 1; 3 
Sept. 1874, p. 1. 

25 Memorandum dated Dec. 1944, Box 1, fd 4. 

26 Memorandum dated Feb.-Apr. 1944, Box 10, fd 6. See Moyle’s diary account 
of his experience in Chicago, July 1884, Box 1, fd 3; Gene A. Sessions, ed., “A View of 
James Henry Moyle: His Diaries and Letters,” unpublished manuscript, 1974, CLA, 
pp. 18-25. 


Chapter 4 

that ensued when the Republican law students in the parade in 
honor of Blaine when he visited Ann Arbor carried a banner at 
their head saying “The law students solid for Blaine.” I was the first 
to get a hold of it and pull it down; then followed the brawl, which 
resulted in tearing the banner to pieces with torn clothing and all 
but broken bones. There were plenty of bruises and fisticuffs."' 

Home Stretch 

But with all this excitement I did not forget my primary 
purpose in Michigan. In the spring of 1885, 1 managed to graduate 
from law school, but it had not been easy mentally or physically. I 
am much freer now from aches and pains than I was then. In fact 
I am practically free from the bilious headaches and stomach 
troubles that seriously afflicted me when I was a college student 
even to the extent of incapacitating me for efficient effort in any 
mental line of work. I suffered a sickening distress almost every 
weekend in Ann Arbor. I was carrying a double load, one in the 
law school and the other in the university proper. I did five years 
work in three, working two summers alone since there were then 
no summer schools."’* 

I took the bar examination in Michigan because Franklin S. 
Richards urged it and said there was doubt as to whether I could 
be admitted to practice in Utah, because I had been through the 
Endowment House in which the judges believed oaths were taken 
against the Government that showed disloyalty. Fortunately, he 
was wrong, but I think I was the first endowed Mormon in that 
period of intense excitement and hatred to be admitted to the 
Utah bar. The only other I know of, LeGrand Young, had been 
earlier when the issue was not so violent. His partner, Parley 
Williams, was also interested in Brigham Young’s patronage that 
LeGrand, his nephew, would assure to the firm. 29 

I often think of what college training did for me. As soon as I 
obtained my degree of bachelor of law, I was automatically trans- 
ferred from the class in which I moved in the district school of the 

27 Ibid. 

28 Memorandum dated Dec. 1944, Box 1, fd 4. 

29 Memorandum dated Sept. 1945, Box 13, fd 1. Richards had visited Moyle in 
Ann Arbor to discuss the possibility of a partnership. See diary entries, Feb. 1885, 
Box 1, fd3. 



Fifteenth Ward where only teamsters, ordinary mechanics, com- 
mon farmers, clerks, mason tenders, and pick-and-shovel laborers 
moved. My associates graduated into those vocations, and not one 
of them went beyond them when they started life, because they 
prepared for nothing else. I alone of all the boys in my classes, 
except John and Lafayette Burton, sons of Bishop Burton, stepped 
up immediately in higher pay and greater distinction, not because 
of ability but by greater ambition and industry. I became at once 
outstanding and distinctive because I had gone to college and 
trained myself for less competition and better opportunity. I wish 
I could present the picture as I see it, because it meant a sudden 
leap up from a common westside clodhopper (so to speak) to the 
highest status a young man could attain. '" 

David Whitmer, My First Witness 

I was anxious to get home after three long years in school, but 
on May 10, 1885, my father wrote to me making a suggestion for 
my return trip to Utah that startled me, but upon which I was 
happy to act: “David Whitmer, being the only one living of the 
three witnesses of the Book of Mormon,” he wrote, “it is my wish 
that you make it a point to call and see him for it will be of 
advantage to you in a time to come.” So I detoured to Richmond, 
Missouri, where I found Brother Whitmer in the yard of his small 

David Whitmer, at the time of my two-hour interview with him, 
was in very good health for a man of his years. His mind was clear 
and he did not waver, so far as I could observe, even at the end of 
a continuous line of questions from a sprouting attorney examin- 
ing and cross-examining his first witness in a matter of supreme 
importance to him. 1 felt t hat nothing I had ever done was of more 
importance to me. I had no thought of its importance to others, 
or I would not have contented myself with making only a very brief 
statement of the most essential facts in the daily diary I had kept 
for years. I had enquired of Brother Whitmer at the hotel where I 
had to stay overnight (because there was only one train a day that 

30 Memorandum dated Feb.-Apr. 1944, Box 10, fd 6. 

31 See James Moyle to James H. Moyle, 10 May 1885, Box 3, fd 1; Sessions, “Bi- 
ographies and Reminiscences,” sec. 14, letter 21. 


Chapter 4 

stopped at Richmond). The clerk said Whitmer was one of the very 
highly respected citizens of the community; the driver of the hack 
that ran from the train to the hotel told me the same. In fact, the 
same answer came from all I questioned and I missed no oppor- 
tunity. Whitmer was slender, tall, and of an intellectual cast. He 
was frank and willing to respond and had the appearance of an 
honest, sincere but plain man of good countenance. He was quite 
gray, and the photographs the Church has show him without 
beard, but my recollection is that he had a full, long, white beard. 
I read in an interview while in Michigan that he had white hair and 
a patriarchal beard. It was a very impressive sight. I understood he 
was troubled with curiosity seekers and sometimes slow to see 
them on that account. So I was grateful he spoke with me for so 
long.’ 2 

David Whitmer, the only one of the Three Witnesses who did 
not return to the Church or become reconciled to it, told me then 
in 1885 (just three years before his death) that he had never left 
the Church. “I have presided over a branch of the Church here in 
Richmond, Missouri, up to the present time.” He also claimed that 
Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet of Cod and that he accepted all 
that was revealed to him up to 1835. “When Sidney Rigdon 
obtained such influence over him, I did not know after 1835 
whether his revelations came from God or Sidney Rigdon,” said 
Whitmer. “I have presided over this branch from that day to this 
and I have never denied the divinity of the Book of Mormon.” He 
also told me of a visit to him of Oliver Cowdery shortly before the 
latter’s death in which Oliver declared to him the divinity of the 
testimony they had borne concerning the Book of Mormon, and 
had appealed to Whitmer to continue to be true to it/ 3 

In later years I had occasion to feel very disappointed in myself 
over the Whitmer interview. Here I was a graduating law student 
and a young lawyer and I somehow failed to take an affidavit from 
Brother Whitmer.” 

32 Memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd 2. See diary entry dated 28 June 
1885, Box 1, fd 3; Sessions, “View of James Henry Moyle,” pp. 28-30. 

33 Memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd 2. See diary entry dated 28 June 
1885, Box 1, fd 3; Sessions, “View of James Henry Moyle,” pp. 28-30. 

34 Interview with Evelyn Moyle Nelson by Gene A. Sessions, 20 June 1974, tran- 
script of twelve pages, p. 6, CLA. 



Ready for Life 

As I traveled on home to Salt Lake City, the concerns of my 
mind began to change. To me, the most important event of my life 
from my youth through the years was to be united eternally to the 
one the Father had in store for me. I devoutly believed that if I 
lived a life worthy of His favor, He would provide one who was 
best suited to my conditions. I believed perfectly in my patriarchal 
blessing and the promise therein that as sure as God existed, when 
the right girl appeared, I would be led to her. I knew I would 
somehow or other be inspired with the knowledge for which I had 
for so long earnestly and devoutly prayed. 

That state of mind existed, and I was as free as the air I 
breathed from obligations of any kind to any woman when 1 
returned home from school. 1 had always held and upheld the 
moral privilege of womanhood as something sacred, that it was the 
privilege and duty of man to be the head and leader of the family. 
1 believed when a woman entrusted herself to intimate association 
with a man it was his duty and sacred responsibility to protect her 
from sin as much as that of physical harm, because the former was 
infinitely the more important of the two. That belief I had inher- 
ited from birth and religious environment. It was the belief of all 
practically with whom I associated until I reached manhood. It was 
a “Mormon” heritage that I have always valued beyond measure 
and for which I have the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 
to thank. If there were nothing else especially praiseworthy in 
Mormonism, that alone would make its existence worthwhile. God 
he praised for saving me from that sin, the most debasing, bestial 
and degrading of all human weaknesses, and the mortal enemy of 
the highest, noblest creative power of man. Sexual immorality is 
the polluting of the source of human life, and the destruction of 
the greatest happiness in life itself. It involves the highest irrespon- 
sibility of life. 1 ’ 

To make sure that I have adequately expressed my apprecia- 
tion for the dearest, choicest, most happy thing, enduring and 
greatest blessing of my earthy life, I want my grandchildren to 
know what I have often said to my children. In my teens I received 
a patriarchal blessing from John Smith, then Patriarch of the 

35 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 4. 


Chapter 4 

Church, in which he said that I “would have a wife suited to my 
conditions.” I lived and prayed for that blessing more than any 
other with a devout belief in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the divinity 
of His work here on earth, and the inspiration of His servants. 36 

While I was on my mission I had corresponded quite regularly 
with Clint Young and exchanged pictures. I also corresponded 
frequently with Hattie and Libby Hooper. I thought the three girls 
were the choicest of my acquaintances, but there was nothing in 
my letters suggesting marriage. It was only the beginning of a 
lifetime of real friendships and cordial relationships. While I was 
on a mission, my correspondence with Hattie Hooper ended or 
was rare. Then I wrote quite regularly to Libby, who about the time 
I went to school or soon after married David C. Dunbar, a brilliant 
Salt Lake boy who was then manager or editor of the Omaha 
Herald.' 1 

At Ann Arbor I corresponded most with Helen Kimball Whit- 
ney, the granddaughter of the second bishop of the Church and 
sister of Bishop and Apostle Orson F. Whitney. I had called on her 
only a few times and never took her out anywhere, but I had paid 
exceptional attention to her because she was a young lady of such 
fine intelligence and appearance. Her mother was also exception- 
ally intelligent. All of this greatly appealed to me, but she im- 
pressed me as being moody and even gloomy. 38 

While at the Deseret University in 1882, I saw at a distance 
(only but once) the girl I would marry— Alice E. Dinwoodey. She 
was much younger than I and very slender, and did not particularly 
attract my attention, except that I was told by Professor Joseph 
Toronto, her teacher, that she was an exceptionally good student. 
That was something that I greatly admired and remembered. But 
I was not (as they are now) stuck on the very slender. I wanted 
children strong, as well as intelligent, boys who would be big, 
vigorous, athletic, and healthy. 

After I went to Ann Arbor, I saw and heard no more of Alice 
and did not even speak of her, except in conversations with Henry 

36 Memorandum dated Feb. 1939, Box 8, fd 4. 

37 Undated memorandum. Box 8, fd 4. See Sessions, “View of James Henry 
Moyle,” p. 61. 

38 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 4. 



Rolapp, my roommate. He knew her as a friend of Allie Eldredge, 
whom he courted. I told him of what Toronto had said and of my 
admiration for it. Rolapp also spoke favorably of her. I admired 
her father, who was portly rather than slender. I had never seen 
her mother except for once and she was stout rather than thin; so 
Alice remained in my mind. In the winter of 1886 and 1887 I 
attended a university dance on the Sixteenth Ward Square. I had 
been anxiously looking for a wife, but had made no headway 
whatever and had no feeling of assurance that I had seen the right 
one. While dancing with Annie Hooper, I saw a tall young lady on 
the other side of the room whose face I thought was absolutely 
beautiful. The only time that I can recall ever asking to be intro- 
duced to a lady was on this occasion. 1 felt before meeting her that 
if she was what she seemed to me to be that she was the girl for 
whom I had been so eagerly looking and praying for. From that 
night I had no doubt about whom I wanted to marry and did not 
let the grass grow under my feet. We were engaged on September 
13 following and married November 17, 1887. 1 was ready for life." 

39 Memorandum dated Feb. 1939, Box 8, fd 4. See also for the period of this 
chapter the following: Memorandum dated May 1944, Box 10, fd 6; reminiscences 
dated 1896-1938, Box 1, fd 4; Sessions, “View of James Henry Moyle,” pp. 1-31. 


Chapter 5 


The First Years 

Immediately after my return home in 1885 I entered the law firm 
of Franklin S. Richards, with offices located in the Hooper Build- 
ing which had just been erected. Later we moved to the new 
Constitution Building. In August or September I was made assis- 
tant city attorney under Richards, and at the same time I was 
appointed deputy county attorney for Salt Lake County, and 
immediately entered upon a very active practice of the law, espe- 
cially as police court prosecutor. I also did all the prosecuting in 
all of the courts in behalf of the county attorney. During the 
following year, 1886, I was elected county attorney and re-elected 
in 1888 by the Peoples Party, and at the same time was elected to 
the territorial legislature, in which I took a prominent part. 1 

When I first ran for county attorney just after leaving school, 
my old friend, Thomas F. Howells, said that I was on the way to 

1 Memorandum dated Mar. 1932, Box 9, fd 3; James Henry Moyle Collection, 
Library-Archives, Historical Department, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 
Salt Lake City, hereinafter cited as CI.A. All references hereinafter to box and folder 
(fd) are for items from this collection. The Hooper Building was located on the north 
side of First South between Main and State streets. 


Chapter 5 

apostasy from the Church and used the fact against me, though he 
had always before been very friendly. I think he was influenced 
some by jealousy, though he was in no sense a rival. His ambition 
was to teach school as he was doing and did all his life. He was 
older than I, and I seemed to be moving up too rapidly. When I 
fitted into the situation he became a friend and admirer again. J 

In this connection, George Q. Cannon and Brigham Young, 
Jr., attended the celebration in the old courthouse when I was first 
elected county attorney in 1886, and we had a keg of beer for the 
few who were present and at which Apostle Young rather shocked 
me with the freedom of his indulgence. The virtues of men like 
Elder Young and their real worth are undeniable, but efforts to 
conceal the wrong and exalt the right accomplish nothing. It is 
rather alack of knowledge of the conditions under which they lived 
that makes some of their actions easily misunderstood in the light 
of today.' 

During those first years of my law practice, criminal cases 
appealed from the police court or precinct justices of the peace 
were frequently not prosecuted there and were left without action 
because of the prejudiced judges and (very frequently) jurors who 
were often selected by deputy marshals who would select their 
friendly acquaintances who liked the job. Not a few were of the 
street-loafing kind, so that between the prejudice of the judges and 
jurors against anything Mormon the verdict was usually known 
before the case was ever heard. It was so bad that the old county 
attorney, a very reputable and fine man, had seen justice defeated 
so often that he began to let cases rest, because he felt that it was 
hopeless or not worthwhile trying. 1 

Judge Charles S. Zane was a man of fine, clean, and moral 
quality. His son John and I were in some classes together at Ann 
Arbor, although he did not study law. I got on fairly well withjudge 
Zane and he treated me very well. 1 was also ambitious, and keen 

2 Memorandum dated Mar. 1945, Box 12, fd 2. 

3 Memorandum dated Sept., Nov.-Dee. 1943, Box 10, Id 3. See comments on 
the same subject in chap. 2. 

4 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 4. See John Nebeker, “Earlyjustice in 
Utah," Utah Historical Quarterly 3 (1935): 87-89. 


Lawyer, Legislator, and Democrat 

to make a good record, hence I was persistent and on the job with 
the result that 1 cleaned out all of the old cases within a few weeks. ’ 

It was almost a nightly occurrence for someone to be drugged 
or so drunk that he would be robbed. One favorite scheme was to 
get a man drunk or drugged and have some fellow quarrel with 
him then get him on the floor and roll him around until his pockets 
were relieved of money, beat him, and then get away. There were 
generally a bunch of loafers around to do the job and share the 
profits. 5 6 

Offenders often attempted to bribe the prosecuting attorney. 
A party charged with a police court offense would say to the 
prosecutor that he wanted to retain his service for which he offered 
a “fee.” I was new in the business, but I recognized it for what it 
was and to each firmly replied that 1 could not accept the money. 
At first the approach was so apparently innocent and cleverly made 
that 1 took no action, but when it was repeated several times, I 
determined to end these attempts not only by prosecuting the 
individuals vigorously, but when the trials came I informed the 
judge of the facts and asked that they be given the limit of the law 
authorized. That medicine was a perfect antidote and I was never 
again annoyed by a bribery attempt. 

As county attorney and member of the legislature, I received 
from the two railroad systems free annual passes for their roads in 
Utah, as was their custom in all such cases. These I returned 
unused. When Dan Spencer, my boyhood chum and then assistant 
passenger agent (and later the general agent of the Union Pacific), 
urged me to accept, 1 replied: “I am now a public official, and 1 
will not be embarrassed by your coming to me asking aid in getting 
a privilege from the city council or legislature. I am going to be 
absolutely free in my political and public activities.” That was the 
substance of it. But it was not an uncommon thing at the same 
time for influential men to ask for and use their influence to get 
not only such passes over the Utah roads but general passes. Parley 
L. Williams, so long the attorney for the Union Pacific system in 
this section, said to me that he was disgusted when he even had a 

5 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 4. See Thomas G. Alexander, “Charles S. 
Zane, Apostle of the New Era,” Utah Historical Quarterly 34 (Fall 1966): 290-314. 



Chapter 5 

member of the Supreme Court (when important railroad cases 
were before that court) insist that he be given not only a pass over 
the system to Omaha but over connecting lines to New York and 
then over the steamship lines to Europe. He named the man, but 
1 will not.' 

Defending Polygamists 

During the late 1880s I was also active in the defense of 
polygamists, and I accompanied Sheriff Andrew Burt and William 
Salmon, a city policeman, on visits to the underground to interview 
witnesses and polygamists in hiding. We usually went at night and 
I recall carrying a pistol. Burt, who was also chief of police and 
bishop of the Twenty-first Ward, made me a special policeman with 
a star and club I still have. s 

During the administration of Church President John Taylor, 
and notwithstanding congressional legislation and vigorous fed- 
eral criminal prosecutions by anti-Mormon Federal officials, obe- 
dience to the law of plural marriage was emphasized more than 
ever before. In the selection of Church officials, polygamists were 
considered only where they could be found fitted for the work to 
be performed, but they were generally the superior men of the 
Church anyway. It is my understanding that the failure to select a 
polygamist was a rare exception. So not only monogamist office- 
holders but also members generally were urged more strenuously 
than before to enter into polygamy. John Taylor was reputed to be 
emphasizing that issue somewhat the same as Heber J. Grant is 
now emphasizing the importance of obedience to the Word of 
Wisdom and the payment of tithing. It was even asserted that 
President Taylor had received a revelation on the subject. 

There is no doubt that the leaders of the Church were in 
earnest about the necessity of plural marriage in the face of 
threatened imprisonment and seizure of property. Moreover, 
there can be no doubt that the members obeyed that principle as 
a sacred institution and divine command. The question is now 
raised as to whether the members generally accepted that principle 


7 Memorandum dated Sept.-Oct. 1943, Box 10, fd 3. 
K Memorandum dated 1942, Box 9, fd 5. 

Lawyer, Legislator, and Democrat 

as a part of their religion. I have no hesitance in saying that they 
did, and that they sincerely believed in its divine origin. 9 10 

I recognized polygamy as a part of my religious belief, an 
essential element among the principles of the Gospel of Jesus 
Christ, and I said to my wife when we were engaged that I was a 
whole-soul believer in the Gospel (which included polygamy) as 
understood by the Latter-day Saints. I added that I had no thought 
of engaging in that principle and had no desire to do so, and that 
I probably never would become a polygamist so far as I could then 
determine, but that if I should become convinced that it was my 
duty to take another wife, I should be free to do so. To that, my 
fiance consented. 

In view of all that has happened since my engagement, the 
question has often arisen in my mind as to whether the revelation 
on plural marriage was from God. My conclusion after pondering 
the matter for over fifty years is that plurality of wives under the 
sacred ordinances of the Church was a divine institution. But as 
my mind was directed to the subject recently by reading the sixth 
volume of the Roberts history of the first century of Mormonism 
and especially the Woodruff Manifesto of 1890, I asked myself, 
what would be the result if the revelation was not from God? The 
conclusion is that even in that event my faith in the Gospel is such 
that I would be unshaken in my belief that Joseph Smith was a 
prophet of God, and that the Gospel as otherwise revealed is true. 
1 searched my mind on the subject and could come to no other 
conclusion. It just does not matter to my faith in the Church." 1 

The Practice of Law in Early Utah 

The General Authorities held offices in large corporations 
when I was active in the practice of law in the 1890s and early years 
of this century. Members of the Twelve then became directors even 
of mining corporations, with assets only of wildcat mining loca- 
tions of no known value— purely speculative. The names helped to 
sell stock. But when I commenced to practice law in 1885 there 

9 Memorandum dated May 1938, Box 9, fd 3. 

10 Memorandum dated Aug., Oct. 1941, Box 9, fd 6. See Kenneth W. Godfrey, 
“The Coming of the Manifesto,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 5 (Autumn 
1970): 1-25; Henry J. Wolfinger, “A Reexamination of the Woodruff Manifesto in the 
Light of Utah Constitutional History,” Utah Historical Quarterly 39 (Fall 1971): 328-49. 


Chapter 5 

were very few corporations. I am quite sure partnerships were far 
more numerous and prominent in businesses both large and small. 
There were then even private banks. It would be interesting and 
instructive to know when Walker Brothers were incorporated and 
others. But a big change came in business with the Panic of 1893. 
Up to that time, there were very few corporations, but they 
multiplied very rapidly thereafter. (Now partnerships are becom- 
ing more popular again to avoid business concerns from getting 
into the higher brackets of the income tax.) After the Panic of 
1893, corporations were popular to avoid personal liability beyond 
the money invested in the corporation. In a partnership, however 
small the interest, the liability was unlimited in cases of failure. 
And there were numerous failures in that Panic of 1893. In my 
opinion and I think it is clear, even Church procedure was vitally 
affected by that panic. For example, prior thereto practically all 
controversies among members were settled by the Church, but 
with the panic, attachments were common and had to be per- 
formed in a court of law." 

Thus very much of the universal custom or rule among Latter- 
day Saints not to take a brother into court gradually ended. The 
change developed naturally, sensibly, and with practically no for- 
mal action in the matter. I was a high councilor in the Ensign Stake 
when it was organized in 1904 and into the 1930s, and we only 
tried a case or possibly two a year, and those only for moral 
turpitude or violation of some Church law. So ended a salient 
feature of pioneer times when pretty much all were of one faith. 
It was of vital value then and now illustrates one of the great 
vitalities of Mormonism. Should we not therefrom acknowledge 
that the boy prophet’s divine mission is very apparent? He pre- 
sented to the Church that system of judicure in 1834 when he was 
only twenty-nine years old. It was as near perfect for the time and 
his people as God Himself could make it. His successors were 
inspired in making it effective and a great saving and harmonizing 
factor in the Mormon theocracy of the early life of the Church. 
While not in use so much now, it still continues the same service 

11 Memorandum dated Nov. 1944, Box 1, fd 4. See Arrington, “Utah and the 
Depression of the 1890s,” pp. 2-18. 


Lawyer, Legislator, and Democrat 

and always will, because it is built on a divine foundation and 
should be used more freely than it is now. 1 " 

So it was not until the Panic of 1893 that the Church courts 
were not crowded with litigation of all kinds. It was in the early 
1890s that I was put on trial in the Twelfth Ward before the bishop 
with all of the leading officers of a corporation for suing a brother 
in court. It was my only offense in a Church court but in this case 
I was only the attorney. The case was promptly dismissed when the 
corporate offense of the defendants became apparent, which it 
very soon did. 1 ' 

Healthful, Inspiring Surroundings 

As my practice in these various facets of the law began to 
provide me with a good living, I turned my attention to a home 
for my family. In February of 1892 I purchased with my father-in- 
law, Henry Dinwoodey, the northeast corner of First South and 
Fourth East for $25,000. It consisted of ten rods on First South 
Street and 187 1/2 feet on Fourth East with an addition at the 
northeast corner. On the land was an old adobe one-story building 
that needed to be removed. After the upper structure had been 
torn down, I thought I would remove the floor by myself. So after 
office hours I hastened to that floor and began to tear it off. I then 
found an older floor underneath, which I proceeded to remove 
alone. It was about dusk, and I was lifting something up, using all 
my strength, when I suddenly went through the first floor as if 
there were no floor under me. Fortunately, my arms caught on the 
side of the opening in the floor and to my astonishment I found 
that I was over an old well about sixty feet deep. It was then nearly 
dark. Few were passing as it was long after the usual travel home 
from office and workshop, and all was quiet around me. I was 
afraid for a moment that I could not get myself out, but finally 
managed to pull myself up. That was an experience I will never 
forget. 14 

I wanted healthful, inspiring surroundings for my children, so 

12 Memorandum dated Sept. 1945, Box 13, fd 1. See D&C 102; Smith, History of 
the Church, 2:28-35. 

13 Memorandum dated Sept. 1945, Box 13, fd 1. 

14 Memorandum dated 1942, Box 9, fd 5. 


Chapter 5 

in 1895 I built a summer home at an elevation of more than 8700 
feet at Brighton or Silver Lake. It was the first modern home built 
there. Henry W. Lawrence built the first rustic home there. The 
only other buildings there at the time were three simple pioneer 
log cabins. J. R. Walker, Sr., and Dr. W. F. Anderson had two of 
these, and Ben Hampton had the other, which was the rudest of 
the three. I:> 

In addition to the homes in Brighton and in the city, I 
purchased a ninety-six-acre farm, timbered and well-watered, at 
Cottonwood in 1903. It was about ten miles from my home in the 
city and is now in the choicest suburban home location in the state. 

I did this for the same reason I bought Brighton— I wanted health- 
ful and inspiring surroundings for my children. I provided my boys 
and girls with horses and things like that to give them recreation 
and a closeness to life. Sara, for example, had a fine Shetland and 
a splendid wicker cart I bought from one of the Walker brothers. 
At the farm, I maintained a lake of an acre and a quarter in which 
there was ample running water for swimming, boating, and fishing. 
So I kept all three homes for my family through the years. I recently 
sold the cottage at Brighton to my son James with the under- 
standing that it would be kept in the family as a mountain home."' 

When my boys were growing, I had a grandson of the noted 
German police dog Rin Tin Tin of movie fame. He eventually 
became too savage for the city, and we gave him to Grant Ivins 
who was then in the country raising chickens. Grant later became 
a professor at Brigham Young University. But the dog became 
even too vicious for chicken thieves, so Grant gave him to a 
lonesome rancher in Idaho where he distinguished himself by 
taking a mouthful of the seat of a neighbor’s trousers when he 
came to get some gasoline from a pump in the yard. This dog never 
gave notice of an attack, but quietly took a bite of what he thought 
was an intruder. We had him at our cottage at the farm for several 
years and he would not disturb under ordinary circumstances a 
well-dressed man or lady, but if a man in overalls came around or 
one very poorly dressed, he would quietly follow him and before 
he reached the door would advise him to stop by taking hold of 


15 Memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 8, fd 3. 
Ifi Memorandum dated May 1941, Box 10, fd 6. 

Lawyer, Legislator, and Democrat 

the leg of his pants. He was very large and in the city, he soon 
discovered that as people approached him on the sidewalk they 
gave him the right of way. He soon learned that it was great to 
enjoy that privilege so he would trot along the sidewalk just to see 
people get out of the way. One day, an elderly man who stood for 
his rights on the sidewalk claimed to have been knocked down and 
injured. That is when the dog was consigned to the farm and 
eventually to Idaho. 1 ' 

Outside of the Brightons, I was the only Mormon to locate at 
Silver Lake when I built our cottage there in 1895. Dr. Anderson, 
the only Mormon in his family, preceded me, but he was not active 
in the Church. So in the early days there were no Mormons there 
except my family. Consequently, I loved to take my family to the 
top of the peaks around Brighton on Sunday, and there hold an 
informal service of sorts. I never worshipped my God more fer- 
vently than when sitting on top of one of those peaks looking at 
the surrounding mountains. From majestic Wolverine, 1 1 ,000 feet 
elevation, you could see Timpanogos nearby on the south, Twin 
Peaks just west, and all the way to the mountains about Logan on 
the north, and the peaks in the Uintas on the east. From Wolverine 
you could also look down the Little Cottonwood and see the 
Jordan, and from Scots Peak on the north you could see through 
an opening in the ridge of the main Wasatch on the west the Great 
Salt Lake. It was really an impressive sight. I know of nothing that 
ever impressed me more spiritually than the grandness of the view 
from our high mountain peaks. There a nearness to Deity was a 

I loved in the evening to gaze from the porch in front of the 
cottage on Sunset Peak and witness the last rays of the sun shining 
on it. It is triangular in form, and from its sides flow the rain and 
snow to the east down Snake Creek to Midway, Heber City, and 
the Provo River, down Little Cottonwood west and down Big 
Cottonwood north, and then west both to the Jordan. I am not 
sure whether some of the water does not go south and east down 
the American Fork to the Utah Lake. Its peak is the corner of Utah, 
Salt Lake, and Wasatch Counties, and Summit is not far away. It 
is not quite so high as some others but enough to be impressive. 

17 Memorandum dated May 1938, Box 9, fd 3. 


Chapter 5 

Its sides are not so rugged but rather placid and pleasing. I loved 
Brighton as no place else on earth, but I had too much to do in 
the city to stay there as much as I would have liked. 18 

The Legislature of 1888 

I was re-elected county attorney in 1887 and at the same time 
was elected a member of the house in the territorial legislature of 
1888, and made chairman of the committee on education, to my 
lasting satisfaction. 

I hope to be pardoned for personal references; they seem to 
fit in so naturally to me in my old age. But let me here emphasize 
the fact that no special individual credit is due me for leadership 
in the work of which I will write concerning the establishment of 
public institutions for the advancement of the intellectual and 
moral welfare of the territory. The real leadership exhibited then 
was rather by men who had remained at home and had longer 
active public service. I had just emerged from school and this was 
my first appearance in real public life. In those days the dominat- 
ing motto was that the office should seek the man and not the man 
the office and so the senior brethren and controlling statesmen 
settled in the background who would be nominated, and the 
nomination meant election up to that date, but not thereafter. 
Indeed, a new era dawned afterwards and that legislature was its 
prelude. The end of the old road had been reached and a new era 
for better or worse had arrived by 1890. The wise old leaders 
thought for the worse, and even with my recent three years’ 
absence in a purely intellectual sphere with no contact with home 
surroundings and the violent prejudices and existing hatreds, I 
found myself largely in sympathy with their fears for the worst. 

That legislature of 1888, nevertheless, was the prelude to the 
new era in Utah that meant so much of good as well as evil. The 
travail through which we passed in the 1890s not only gave birth 
to free graded schools, pure running water in houses, sewers, and 
street improvements, but it opened the way for progressive think- 
ing that ultimately changed the entire intellectual environment in 
the territory. But do not think for a moment that there was not 
good in the old regime. In fact there was as much of good in the 


18 Memorandum dated Nov. 1945, Box 13, fd 3. 

Lawyer, Legislator, and Democrat 

old as the new philosophy of social and political life, for the time. 
The old, as I have said, will furnish the finest field for the study of 
empire building and the laying of the soundest foundation upon 
to build a lasting, stable structure. The rugged individualism of 
Brigham Young’s period was the best for that time. However 
inappropriate as 1 believe it would be now, the more we can retain 
of that spirit in our present social fabric the better for the state 
and individual. But with the New Deal we are again in a social 
revolution and a new order of life is inevitable; we will accommo- 
date ourselves to it or go into the discard and oblivion into which 
all reactionary policies lead. But this is not the point for such 
discussions and again may I be pardoned. I am so full of this 
thinking that it is a relief to get some of it out of my system. My 
point is that the legislature of 1888 and the public institutions it 
created and the intellectual progress it promoted were far-seeing 
and revolutionary. 

Remember, there was but one public institution in the terri- 
tory maintained by the territorial treasury and that was the insane 
asylum created in 1880. The Deseret Agricultural and Manufactur- 
ing Association, which conducted our territorial fairs, was a second 
institution, but it provided its own support. 19 I was one of its 
directors appointed by Governor Caleb West in 1889 at the same 
time I was made a director of the more famous reformatory. The 
association’s main job was to conduct the territorial fair, but it was 
an important and choice institution whose board members, like 
those of the asylum and reformatory, were among the prominent 
men of the territory. Possibly a third was the Nauvoo Legion or 
territorial militia which, like the fair board, was a real live institu- 
tion of great importance and dignity until it became so important 
that it was suppressed by Congress as a menace of some kind to 
the nation. The officers of the Legion were real dignitaries in their 
times and the militia encampments outside of the city were not 
only full of great dignity and importance but were also pictur- 
esque. The officers of the militia were all proud of their fine, full 
blue uniforms and the generals, majors, and captains with their 

19 Undated memorandum, Box 9, fd 2. See also undated memorandum, Box 8, 
fd 6; Leonard J. Arrington, “The Deseret Agricultural and Manufacturing Society in 
Pioneer Utah,” Utah Historical Quarterly 24 (1956): 165-70. 


Chapter 5 

dashing, large ostrich-feathered hats were the admiration of the 
ladies and children, and jealousy of men. The parade through the 
city during the week or more of their annual encampment was 
comparable if not greater than the splendid Fourth and Twenty- 
fourth of July celebrations we have now. Everybody saw it, and in 
the city and parade grounds outside of the city, men and officers 
gave up their employment elsewhere and served night and day to 
play in the magnificence of their heroic surroundings. I do not 
think any were paid, but I do not know. The cavalry and cannon 
brigades developed some fine horses and plenty of pride. 

The public schools, like the university, were supported com- 
pletely by the tuition collected from the students. The legislature 
did, however, give to the university $5,000 a year for free tuition 
and aid to forty normal students and the same amount for the care 
and education of indigent deaf mutes. The majority of the older 
statesmen in the legislature who had theretofore dominated the 
scene, and with the support of one of the best carpetbag governors 
we ever had, bitterly opposed most of the appropriations made. 
The demand for brevity prevents more details, but the main 
opposition came from and centered in the special friends of the 
insane asylum who clamored for an abundant appropriation for 
the asylum. It had received theretofore pretty much all of the 
territorial revenue except that needed for paying the expense and 
salaries of public officials and providing for roads and bridges. 
There was a little done also for the fish and game organization. 
The Utah County members were real leaders in the legislature and 
(with the sympathy of others and the governor) were strongly for 
the asylum. But there was a new element elected in 1888, consist- 
ing chiefly of the young men particularly from north of Utah 
County but scattered all over the state. We organized to defeat 
what was called “the asylum ring,” and our revolutionary appro- 
priations thereafter made it necessary to bond the territory for the 
first time in the sum of $150, 000. 20 

An unprecedented sum of $75,000 was appropriated for a 
reform school to be located in Ogden, the most important city 
in the territory excepting the capital, and $25,000 for an agricul- 
tural college to be located in the extreme northern end of the 


2° Memorandum dated Feb. 1944, Box 10, fd 4. 

Lawyer, Legislator, and Democrat 

state. This may sound extraordinary and highly inconsistent as it 
did to me at the time. But Salt Lake County was satisfied with 
what was done for the university and the fair board, and Cache 
with the college, and Weber with the reform school. Nephi, then 
an important center, was satisfied with having the federal court 
held there once a year. Ogden got the reform school largely 
because it had one of the youngest men in the legislature who 
came the nearest to being the leader of what I may be permitted 
to call the progressive forces of that legislature, C. C. Richards. 
It was he who organized the Weber forces, who to a man wanted 
the reform school rather than the college, and he had the best 
of company in that undertaking. There were no finer characters 
in the territory than those prominent in that effort. They were 
the leading men among public officials, business, church, and 
social leaders, such as the successful and far-seeing Tom Dee, 
whose name will always be honored by the monumental hospital 
deservingly named after him. 

Little then was known about agricultural colleges. Agricultural 
instruction had been taught in Catholic schools, in Harvard, and 
in some other institutions, but it was not until the Morrill Bill in 
the Congress of 1862 that the Government started its land-grant 
college program which gave impetus to their rapid growth and 
great importance. 21 

We created the reform school, the agricultural college, and the 
school for the deaf and blind. We doubled the appropriation for 
the normal branch of the University of Utah, and made a large 
appropriation for the equipment of the new university building on 
the old Union Square. We issued the first bonds of the territory to 
foster all this advancement . All of this was accomplished in the face 
of the strongest opposition from the governor and old conserva- 
tive leaders of the dominant Peoples Party that had elected the 
legislature. The political leadership of that party was hence re- 
formed at the same time, as were also its political philosophies. 
This progressive break paved the way for the Liberal Party in Salt 
Lake City to establish free and graded schools, to give to the city 
the sanitary reforms it so badly needed, and particularly to put 
running mountain water into the homes of the people and thereby 

21 Undated memorandum, Box 9, Id 2. 


Chapter 5 

save them from the ravages of death caused by the use of surface- 
water wells or gutter water to drink. This practically eliminated 
uncontrollable diseases such as dyptheria that caused the death of 
thousands (especially little children) in the early 1880s. Some 
epidemics literally wiped out some families and decimated others, 
as in the case of the Moyles. But for that dread scourge there would 
have been double the number in Father’s large family. It is difficult 
to make an apology for these long-delayed but desperately-needed 

While the Liberal Party victory of 1890 was local, the old 
Peoples Party representatives were overwhelmingly in the majority 
in the legislature of 1888, and it meant still more because it 
happened first and involved the entire territory. The significance 
of its action is enlarged by the fact that it came from within the 
dominating element (rugged individualism) of the time while that 
of the Liberal Party regime in Salt Lake City came from without 
the territory and from surrounding conditions that made it much 
easier for it to conceive of advancing beyond that period of isolated 
pioneering. To be brief, the younger element in the Peoples Party 
in that legislature quietly overwhelmed the old leadership of the 
party. When they saw what was happening they fought desperately 
to regain their position of power and extreme conservatism that 
had previously prevailed in keeping taxation down to a minimum. 
They hoped to maintain the old conditions with only a moderate 
advance and to prevail in their desire for the established order for 
funding— roads, bridges, the territorial judiciary officials, and the 
one institution maintained by the territory, the insane asylum. It 
was a great advance made in 1880 of which the older conservatives 
were justly proud. 

But that was not in the minds of the younger element. We 
quietly and carefully organized our forces to reverse the old order 
and, if needed, to go to extremes to do what the new times and 
conditions demanded. It was thus that a new era of social and 
educational advancement dawned in a realistic way. It was the 
product of the Peoples Party in 1888 and not that of the Liberal 
Party of 1890 after a local victory. 

I might say more about the great question over the locations 


22 Memorandum dated Dec. 1945, Box 13, fd 3. 

Lawyer, Legislator, and Democrat 

of these new institutions. One said the college was located where 
it was because anything raised in Cache Valley could be raised 
anywhere in Utah, but I think the majority wanted it elsewhere. 1 
know I thought it should be located in Davis County where the 
highest and most varied production was possible. If Davis County 
had had the votes that Weber County had, it would in my opinion 
have been located there. So the real answer lies in the realm of 
power politics. Legislators, like most men, must be practical to be 
successful. The population in the territory was as it is now largely 
north of Utah County which had the asylum. I was not one of the 
real leaders in the legislature when elected for I was only two years 
out of school and had been out of Utah on a mission and at school 
for almost six years. But men of near my age who during that time 
had been active in home affairs were the most prominent leaders. 
I am pleased to say that the gentleman elected as our president, 
Judge Elias A. Smith, was president of the Senate and rendered 
yeoman service for the new cause. He was also probate judge of 
Salt Lake County, the highest elective judicial office in the terri- 
tory. While we had numerous real leaders, I would say C. C. 
Richards of Ogden was the outstanding field leader of the new 
element. Weber County was the most populous and potent next 
to Salt Lake, and therefore Weber County with such a leader was 
able to get its choice after Salt Lake. It was a cold-blooded and 
realistic affair in which local interests played a very prominent role. 
Some of the best and ablest men in the legislature were from Utah 
County and they fought as desperately as any for their pride in the 
humanitarian asylum. It was the same in Weber County; they had 
and always have had outstanding and able men both in business 
and public affairs, and all joined tenaciously and with intensity in 
supporting the leadership of C. C. Richards in demanding the 
reform school and the largest single appropriation ever made to 
that time by any Utah legislature to establish and maintain that 
school, and in rejecting the college the legislators would have 
gladly given them. 

Another question was why the greater appropriation for the 
reform school. My own answer to the problem so far as I saw it was 
that the “rising generation” (a common expression in that day) was 
Utah’s best crop. Their welfare was of the greatest interest to all 
involved in public welfare. Therefore the spiritual and moral 
welfare of the young was of the highest importance. The insane 


Chapter 5 

had to be cared for, because they were unable to provide for 
themselves or control their actions, so they came first. The inoral 
and spiritual welfare of children was not secondary, but it could 
wait longer. The need for an agricultural education was less urgent 
still. Cache County got the college simply because its votes were 
dominant in the north. Bryan of Nephi, another leader, was 
satisfied with all he could get, namely one term a year of the 
Federal Court to be held in Nephi, the “Little Chicago” of Utah, 
as he wanted it called. So it was with that kind of log-rolling that 
the new institutions were created, rather than standing for and 
waiting for just what could be the ultimate best. It is thus apparent 
that the older wise men of the legislature were not without some 
justification for their conservatism. 

What I want to emphasize is the fact that the younger elements 
were inspired with the right ideals and determination to do what 
was so badly needed as best they could. And they did it, and thus 
was ushered in a new era of progress by the sons of the pioneers 
in 1888. Once again, it preceded the work of the Liberal Party in 

The importance of the reform school was further emphasized 
in the fact that provision was made for a committee of four to go 
east and study reformatories and then to advise the trustees as to 
the best methods to follow. The committee consisted of the county 
attorneys of Salt Lake (myself), Davis (Joseph Barton), and Box 
Elder (Riceyjones), with George W. Thatcher, Jr., as secretary. We 
visited the principal reformatories of the United States, and rec- 
ommended the adoption of the Michigan plan based on patterning 
the school on home life with a father and mother in a separate 
home with as many inmates as they could care for, and with the 
best possible classification of the same. As only one building was 
provided for and the inmates were limited, all lived in one build- 
ing, but the ideal was to make the school as near like a home as 
practical. ’’ After our report, the Reform School at Ogden was 
erected. I at once became a director, and shortly after, president 
of the board."' 

It may be of interest to know that in that legislature were many 


23 Memorandum dated Aug. 1945, Box 12, fd 4. 

24 Memorandum dated Mar. 1932, Box 9, fd 3. 

Lawyer, Legislator, and Democrat 

young men who subsequently became leaders in wider public 
fields. C. C. Richards became the first Mormon secretary of the 
territory and Mormon federal official in Utah after Brigham 
Young’s time. He was also the first chairman of the Democratic 
Party of Utah. William H. King became a federal judge, Congress- 
man, and United States Senator. Clarence E. Allen and Joseph 
Howell also became Congressmen. Samuel R. Thurman, a far- 
seeing, wise counselor and able advocate at the bar and public 
forum, distinguished himself as judge and chief justice of the State 
of Utah. Anthon H. Lund, then a merchant in Ephraim and author 
of the reform school bill, was later an outstanding member of the 
First Presidency of the Church. There were other bright lights in 
that legislature, but those were the most notable in my mind. 25 The 
men with whom I worked most closely in that legislature were 
Franklin S. Richards, Hosea Stout, Zerubbabel Snow, Isaac Wadell, 
C. C. Richards, and Franklin D. Richards. 21 ’ 

I must mention one more experience in the legislature. I 
introduced the bill for locating the capitol where it is now and drew 
the deed for the same and resolution of acceptance. At the same 
time, being assistant city attorney, I acted as attorney for the city 
in the same matter. 2 ' 

The doctrine of rugged individualism was so ingrained in the 
social fabric of Utah that it required a sort of revolution or new 
generation to change it suddenly. At least, that which was easy for 
the new generation was very hard for the old one. They would have 
come to it all right but by slower degrees. Nevertheless, a new era 
had dawned in the 1880s and the younger men with some of the 
older were ready for it and they acted, and the result on the whole 
was justified and helpful. So I have always considered the legisla- 
ture of 1888 to have been a real revolution, for we changed the 
social thinking of the territory. 28 

25 Memorandum dated Aug. 1945, Box 12, fd 4. In a note to this passage, 

Moyle said that the “record” indicating that Lund authored the college bill was 

26 Memorandum dated 1942, Box 9, fd 5. 

27 Memorandum dated Feb.-Apr. 1944, Box 10, fd 6. See Everett L. Cooley, 
“Utah’s Capitols,” Utah Historical Quarterly 27 (1959): 258-73. 

28 Memorandum dated Aug. 1945, Box 12, fd 4. 


Chapter 5 

The End of the Peoples Party 

I was for several years a director of the territorial fair and 
held similar honorary positions, but I was always most interested 
in elective politics. 1 was a member and chairman of a subcom- 
mittee of the Peoples Party that conducted the most exciting 
campaign ever known in Utah, that in which the Liberals were 
triumphant over the Peoples Party. In the winter of 1889-90 as 
a member of the Peoples Party committee, I was present at the 
dissolution of the party, and I then announced my devotion to 
Democratic principles. I assisted as one of the younger men in 
the organization of the Democratic Party of Utah, and at once I 
became a member of its territorial committee on which I contin- 
ued to be active. But I never sought office until 1900 when I was 
nominated for governor. 2 ” 

My history study in Ann Arbor led me to the fixed conclusion 
that the union of church and state is injurious to both, and vhen 
1 returned home I determined that I would do what I could to 
effect its separation in Utah. My opportunity came at the dissolu- 
tion of the Peoples Party at the Gardo House in 1890 folloving 
the victory of the Liberal Party in Salt Lake City.™ 

Politics in Utah up to the 1890s was not Democratic or 
Republican, populist or prohibitionist, socialist or communis or 
laborite, but simply Mormon vs. Gentile. The Mormons werethe 
Israelites and the non-Mormons were the Gentiles, and the conest 
of division had nothing whatever to do with national poliics. 
Southern Democrats and Northern Republicans were togener 
members of the Liberal Party if they were Gentiles or apostaes. 
And old Whigs like Daniel H. Wells stood by died-in-the-wjol 
Democrats in the Peoples Party if they were Mormons. And wiat 
a fight it was! Its intensity has never been equaled since the diys 
when men and women and children were burned at the stake or 
their religious beliefs. Is there any wonder, as we look at he 
situation a half century later, that the religious leaders who doni- 
nated the Peoples Party were terrified when they were defeated m 
their own territory in the city elections of 1890?” 


29 Memorandum dated Mar. 1932, Box 9, fd 3. 

30 Memorandum dated Sept.-Oct. 1942, Box 9, fd 6. 

31 Memorandum dated Feb.-Apr. 1944, Box 10, fd 6. 

Lawyer, Legislator, and Democrat 

A supreme effort was made by the Peoples Party to hold the 
political control of Salt Lake City. No campaign has ever compared 
with that of the city election of 1890 either in its expenditures, 
duration, or intensity. I doubt that it has been equaled in any city 
of the United States of the same size. It was a life-and-death struggle 
for the control of the city and the survival of the political leadership 
of Mormon ecclesiastical leaders. The fate of the Church political 
party was in the balance. Failure meant its death. With Liberal 
victory, it soon became apparent that it was necessary to bury that 
party. Hence, a private meeting was arranged for the members of 
the Peoples Party Committee and leaders of the party. It was held 
in the Gardo House, the official home of the President of the 
Church. There was a full attendance, but I do not remember 
whether the members of the Peoples Party Territorial Committee 
were invited or not. My recollection is that the meeting included 
only the City Committee and leaders of the party. 32 

Again, I have a very unclear recollection of who were at the 
Gardo House meeting. Richard W. Young was there as was 
Franklin S. Richards who was city chairman of the party. I do not 
remember whether John R. Winder was present though he may 
have been, because I believe he was party chairman of the territory. 
I presume LeGrand Young was there, but he was not active 
politically as I remember. 33 There were, of course, many others— all 
the prominent members of the Peoples Party councils. We were 
there for some time, but little if anything was done until we were 
advised that George Q. Cannon, then on the underground, was to 
be present. We had not seen any member of the First Presidency 
of the Church for a considerable time. It was a real event, there- 
fore, for President Cannon to attend our meeting and it had been 
kept a secret. I have no definite recollection as to the preliminaries 
of the meeting except that we were looking for some clear word 
from the Presidency. This we received. 

I can see now the view of President Cannon’s entrance into 
the large room on the west side of the building. He entered from 

32 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 9. See O. N. Malmquist, The First 100 
Years: A History of the Salt Lake Tribune , 1871-1971 (Salt Lake City: Utah State Histori- 
cal Society, 1971), pp. 133-36. 

33 Memorandum dated Aug. 1945, Box 12, fd 4. 


Chapter 5 

a door on the east. Always well-dressed, he wore on this occasion 
a dark suit. He was not a large man, but solidly built, with large, 
prominent, and brilliant blue eyes, and 1 think he would have 
commanded attention anywhere on account of his personality. He 
was recognized as the intellectual leader of the Mormon people, 
and not lacking in spirituality. His only rival in this respect was the 
suave Moses Thatcher, one of the twelve apostles at this time. 
Although both were then Democrats, they later became political 
enemies, for President Cannon turned Republican, while Thatcher 
continued a Democrat. I am not sure whether Thatcher was 
present on this occasion, but think not. President Cannon, after 
passing through the door moved to the front of the room. All eyes 
were upon him. 34 

I can remember only the gist of what he said, but it was to this 
effect: “Our people think they are Democrats, but they as a rule 
have not studied the differences between the two parties. If they 
go into the Democratic Party the Gentiles will go into the Repub- 
lican Party because the great majority of them, especially the 
leaders, are Republicans anyway, and the Democrats will follow, 
and we will have the old fight over again under new names. So, as 
many as possible of our people must go into the Republican 
Party.” 35 

There was no controversy over what he said. I have no recol- 
lection of any comments being made, except one by me. I said that, 
from my earliest years, my sympathies had been decidedly with the 
Democratic Party; that my studies on the subject of politics, 
particularly at college, had made me a pronounced Democrat, 
having supported that party in the East; that I was ready and willing 
to stay with the Peoples Party as long as our leaders wished and to 
fight therein to the uttermost; but, if that party was to be dis- 
banded, 1 wanted to be free to follow my convictions as to the 
national party lines in Utah. ' 1 ’ 

To this President Cannon replied that it would be all right for 
me to do so. “Brother Moyle,” he said, “has some strong convic- 

34 Evans manuscript quoting Moyle, Box 18, fd 2. 

35 Memorandum dated Aug. 1945, Box 12, fd 4. 

36 Evans manuscript quoting Moyle, Box 18, fd 2. See also undated memoran- 
dum, Box 8, fd 9. 


Lawyer, Legislator, and Democrat 

lions on the subject, and he should be free to do as he wishes in 
the situation. Doubtless there are others with similar convictions, 
and they, too, should feel free to follow them. But those who have 
no such strong predilections on politics should go into the Repub- 
lican Party, and they should feel that this is their right.” To this he 
added: “One thing is certain, and that is that the old party fight as 
between Mormons and non-Mormons must not be allowed to 
continue.” 17 

1 believe without question that the Church leaders were sin- 
cere and wise in their desire to introduce a new era in their 
policy, and to eliminate the old fight between Mormon and 
Gentile, and that they realized that this could only be accom- 
plished by dividing politically on national political lines in fact 
and not in name only. But I doubt that they so suddenly gave 
up their desire to be a real factor in Utah politics. On the con- 
trary, they realized that they held a dominating influence over 
the thoughts and actions of a very large number of their Church 
members. It is as natural in man to love the exercise of power 
over his fellowman as to eat or to love the opposite sex. It is an 
immovable instinct. And power once acquired and exercised is 
never voluntarily surrendered. Its long enjoyment naturally de- 
velops the thought and matures in the belief that it is a right to 
be enjoyed and perpetuated. Such has been and will be the 
history of man. The exercise of that right is held as long as it is 
possible. It was only surrendered to some degree in this case 
because it was not possible to go on with it and obtain statehood 
at the same time. 

Our Church leaders wanted statehood because they believed 
in the right to govern themselves locally. It was manifestly in the 
interest of all. They also knew their people were the majority in 
the territory and would be in the state, and they would be a real 
power therein politically as well as religiously. In my opinion the 
Church leaders could hardly avoid wanting to be a real power 
among their people, because they were and are deeply and sin- 
cerely interested in the people’s welfare. And they believe in the 

37 Evans manuscript quoting Moyle, Box 18, fd 2. See also memorandum dated 
Aug. 1945, Box 12, fd 4. 


Chapter 5 

wisdom of what they think and their action varies accordig to the 
intensity of that belief in what should be done. ’ 8 

Gumshoers from Church Headquarters 

All of this made it necessary to have influential rligious 
leaders enter the field as Republicans. Apostles Francis MLyman 
and John Henry Smith were apparently selected to be eiefs in 
leading into the Republican Party those who could be let Their 
families and those whom they could influence suddenly ecame 
Republicans; they carried on the work publicly as real belivers in 
Republican issues. On the quiet, the big men (physically asvell as 
ecclesiastically) attended conferences and priesthood meengs at 
which they mingled with as many as possible and especidy the 
influential. They put their strong arms around their friens and 
said with such reasons as they could assign, “You want tojet in 
line with your file leaders.” It was not necessary to urge Momons 
to go into the Democratic Party, so they became so convered to 
Republican issues that they were ardent and sometimes offensive 
partisans, and the fight became so bitter that many were offeided 
religiously and some never got over it. It was a real trial for nany 
good Latter-day Saints, who (thoroughly Democratic) hatel the 
Republican carpetbaggers and the party that sent them. 39 

There is something to be said in justification of their actiin of 
making a deal with the Republicans for statehood. (That agree- 
ment, I believe, was negotiated by Joseph F. Smith and Hiran B. 
Clawson who were in Washington lobbying for statehood.) Reiub- 
lican stock was rising after the defeats Cleveland had given the 
party in 1884 and 1892. The serious and prolonged panic of B93 
made success for the Republicans almost certain in 1896. Aldi- 
tionally, the tariff issue also greatly favored the Republican in 
Utah. Matters worsened because most of the political antagorists 
on both sides were Mormons who tended to treat politics on he 
same principle as religion— truth vs. untruth, the one all right, he 

38 Memorandum dated Aug. 1945, Box 12, fd 4. See also James B. Allen and 
Glen M. Leonard, The Story of the Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co. 
1976), pp. 401-28. 

39 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 9. See Jean Bickmore White, “The Makiig 
of the Convention President: The Political Education of John Henry Smith,” Utah his- 
torical Quarterly 39 (Fall 1971): 350-69. 


Lawyer, Legislator, and Democrat 

other all wrong. More bitter and unyielding partisanship never 
developed anywhere else in the land / 0 

We are now receding from that position, and very many are 
looking for where they can land in politics to their own personal 
advantage rather than standing on high ideals such as noble truth, 
justice, and the right. For example, the sheepmen of the state were 
pretty much all Democrats, but with the tariff issue in which so 
much to their personal benefit was promised by the Republicans, 
they practically all became Republicans, not only because of advice 
from religious leaders but personal selfishness. This was not so, 
however, with me, even though I always made sheep my principal 
investment. An outstanding Republican leader who was also inter- 
ested in sheep said to me: “When dark days come to Democracy 
in Utah, you come with us and there is nothing you want that will 
not be within your reach .” 41 

It was a difficult situation for Mormon Democrats. “Follow 
your file leaders” was the appeal made most effectively by Lyman 
and Smith. They were able to say on the sidelines (but not in 
public) what the leadership of the Church wanted and where the 
leaders stood. That was the most effective and potent appeal these 
“gumshoers” had during the administration of Joseph F. Smith, 
for the people only had to enquire of someone who was intimate 
with the President to learn that Republicanism radiated from him 
like the rays of the sun. I want to make it clear that Lyman and 
Smith soon had religious officials all over the territory acting as 
Republican cohorts who peddled what Lyman and Smith said in 
private. It was a real underground movement that Democrats 
could not very well combat. I never heard of Presidents Woodruff 
and Snow going out of their way privately or otherwise to help 
Democrats or even to stay the progress and success of that under- 
ground movement. Gumshoers had a very clear field, except that 
we who were Democrats and in dead earnest against what they 

40 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 9. See S. George Ellsworth, “Utah’s Strug- 
gle for Statehood,” Utah Historical Quarterly 31 (Spring 1963): 60-69; Richard D. Poll, 

“A State is Born,” Utah Historical Quarterly 32 (Winter 1964): 9-31; Howard R. Lamar, 
“Statehood for Utah: A Different Path,” Utah Historical Quarterly 39 (Fall 1971): 307- 
27; E. Leo Lyman, Political Deliverance: The Mormon Quest for Utah Statehood (Urbana: 
University of Illinois Press, 1986), pp. 255-95. 

41 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 9. 


Chapter 5 

were doing damned diem, and when it was too late to stem the 
tide, finally brought them into some disrepute with independents 
as well as good Democrats. 1 " 

But Presidents Woodruff and Snow did not really serve long 
enough to interfere with this division movement. Snow also was a 
Democrat as I believe were all of the other leaders except maybe 
Joseph F. Smith. He claimed to hate the Democratic Party for the 
ill-reasoned fact that a Democratic governor violated his pledge to 
his father and permitted a mob to kill him. That was a dastardly, 
intolerant thing indeed, but it was a poor excuse for becoming 
Republican. Nevertheless, I never heard of Joseph F. being Repub- 
lican or that way inclined until after the division movement was 
started. I repeat, the only men I ever heard of in the Church being 
Republican before the division movement were ex- Whig Daniel H. 
Wells and the runaway boy, Frank J. Cannon. “ 

The result of all of this was that with the combination of the 
Church leadership with that of the Republican Party leadership 
the old hatred of the carpetbag government was eliminated, and 
carpetbaggers and Church political leaders soon became beloved 
bedfellows. This enhanced the prospect of the Republicans becom- 
ing dominant in Utah rather than the Democrats who had liber- 
ated the people from the sufferings and humiliation of carpetbag 
rule. That a great injustice to the Democratic Party was perpetu- 
ated there is no question, and that ingratitude was boldly and 
coldly exalted there is no question . 41 

A Review of Ingratitude 

A review of that ingratitude will illustrate my point. The 
excitement and indignation that were created throughout the 

42 Memorandum dated Aug. 1945, Box 12, fd 4. “Gumshoer” is an American 
slang term applied to one who behaves surreptitiously. 

43 Memorandum dated Nov. 1944, Box 1, fd 3. See Keith Huntress, “Governor 
Thomas Ford and the Murderers of Joseph Smith,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon 
Thought 4 (Summer 1969): 41-52. See also Joseph F. Smith, Another Plain Talk: Reasons 
Why the People of Utah Should be Republicans (Salt Lake City: Republican Central Com- 
mittee, 1892). 

44 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 1. See G. Homer Durham, “The Develop- 
ment of Political Parties in Utah: The First Phase,” Utah Humanities Review 1 (Apr. 
1947): 122-34; Stewart L. Grow, “The Development of Political Parties in Utah,” West- 
ern Political Quarterly 16 Supplement (Sept. 1963): 39-40. 


Lawyer, Legislator, and Democrat 

nation through the anti-polygamy crusade were such that the 
ordinary citizen of Utah today could hardly conceive of a time 
when politics concerned itself so much with morality. The evan- 
gelical gentlemen were no doubt sincere, but they became fanatical 
and lost their sense of balance in their uncharitable efforts. The 
reading of the Salt Lake Tribune alone during that period demon- 
strates that there was no fundamentally American political princi- 
ple that they would not have sacrificed to achieve their ambition 
and determination to secure the political control of the Utah 
Territory and the destruction of Mormonism. They would not only 
deny statehood but disfranchise themselves of their right to exer- 
cise any of the most fundamental elements of self-government. 
They were worse (if possible) than those irresponsible carpetbag- 
gers sent from Washington to rule Utah. Not a few of them placed 
no limit on the executive and judicial action they would take to 
secure for the minority control of the majority and to deprive the 
majority of its most fundamental political rights. 

President Taylor said, in reviewing the approaching storm in 
April after the Edmunds Act of March 1882, some stormy things, 
one of them that Mormons had “not learned to lick the feet of 
oppressors, or to bow in base submission to unreasonable clamor. 
We will fulfill the letter, so far as practical, of that unjust, unhuman 
law.” (I have often wondered what President Taylor would have 
thought of President Woodruff s Manifesto.) 45 

It was a highly volatile situation, but President Cleveland 
refused to sign the Edmunds-Tucker Act, 1887, made to supple- 
ment and implement the Edmunds (anti-polygamy) Act of 1882. I 
am led to wonder why the Mormon leaders have made so little or 
comparatively little of this wise and courageous American who 
gave to Utah the boon of statehood for which they had ardently 
prayed and looked forward to in vain under nearly half a century 
of Republican rule. Like the Israelites of old, they had longingly 
looked forward to it for forty years in a wilderness of despair. I 
have wondered if a Republican had given Utah that priceless but 
ordinary American privilege of local self-government, what would 

45 Memorandum dated Dec. 1944, Box 1, fd 4. See Taylor’s lengthy and volatile 
conference address of April 9, 1882 , Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. (London: Latter-day 
Saints’ Book Depot, 1854-86; reprint ed., 1967), 23:47-68. 


Chapter 5 

have been his place in the worship of our heroes or great men. But 
President Cleveland granted statehood because of his respect for 
the chief cornerstone of Democratic principles— states rights, or 
the right of man to govern himself in all that pertained to domestic 
affairs, consistent with the maintenance of a federal or general 
government for the American Union. 

President Cleveland had an abundance of courage even to 
refuse to sign the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887, to say nothing of 
not only signing but promoting the passage of the Utah enabling 
act when the sentiment of the country (and especially the orthodox 
religious element) was so aroused against the leadership of the 
Mormons. The previous Republican leadership and administra- 
tions from Fremont down to Harrison would not have granted 
statehood to Utah. No encouragement for it ever came from any 
Republican President. Yet Cleveland did it in the face of the same 
pressures and some day will be adequately honored with a statue 
in front of the state capitol or I mistake the good sense and 
patriotic instincts of Utahns. How I would like to see that day. 4l> 

The chief reason for not getting statehood from a Republican 
administration was the universal belief of Utah’s pioneer stock and 
their friends in the Democratic doctrine of states rights— the right 
of local self-government in purely local and domestic affairs. And 
probably still more potent was the belief that the population of 
Utah was universally and thoroughly Democratic. 4 ' 

Cleveland’s action transformed Utah from a religious, politi- 
cal, financial, and social pesthouse of the bitterest conflict to a 
place of peace, social, and religious composure and comparative 
harmony, financial prosperity, and normal political unity. For 
example, R. N. Baskin, the chief and most persistent anti-Mormon 
leader, was made mayor of Salt Lake City by both Mormons and 
non-Mormons. Henry W. Lawrence, the most prominent anti- 
Mormon apostate, was made county commissioner, and carpetbag 
Chief Justice Zane, who sent hundreds of Mormon leaders to the 
penitentiary, was made chief justice of the state or urged to accept 
the position. Both sides were reconciled. Both parties became 
dominated by the same Mormons and non-Mormons between 


46 Memorandum dated Dec. 1944, Box 1, fd 4. 

47 Undated memorandum. Box 8, fd 9. 

Lawyer, Legislator, and Democrat 

which there had been the greatest antagonism. The Republican 
Party and none of its Presidents had ever shown any signs of 
friendship, but Cleveland realized that the approach of statehood 
would make friends of the Mormon Church leaders when they saw 
it coming, but it was just the reverse. George Q. Cannon, always a 
Democrat, became a potent sponsor in making Utah Republican, 
or as he put it, making the Republican Party a real force in the 
politics of the state and thereby avoid having the misfortune of all 
Mormons in the Democratic Party and non-Mormons in the Re- 
publican Party. 

This could easily have happened. The early migrations to Utah 
of non-Mormons were from the Republican states of the North, 
East, and Midwest, most all coming as did the federal officers down 
to 1885 from those sections. The federal officials and non- 
Mormons here then advertised the material advantages of the 
country, and prospects of non-Mormons controlling it, describing 
Salt Lake City as “once the mysterious capitol of a theocratic 
kingdom,” and “one of the most cosmopolitan places on the 
continent, a resort for tourists, servants, statesmen, and scholars 
from abroad.” The members of the Utah Commission came in 
1882 with all the prevailing prejudices of the East against the 
Mormons, but even so, after becoming acquainted with the people, 
two of the five in 1887, Ambrose B. Carlton of Indiana and General 
John A. McClernand of Illinois (both Democrats) submitted a 
minority report in favor of recommending statehood in which they 
reported both the intellectual and civic advancement of Utah. IS 

The Deal for Statehood 

If that all is true, what was the justification for such stultifica- 
tion, ingratitude, and deception in the face of gratitude that should 
be due the Democrats of the nation for giving the long-prayed-for 
freedom of sovereign statehood which had been so long denied by 
the Republicans and freely given at the first opportunity by the 
Democrats? The end justifies the means? Then what were the 

48 Memorandum dated Dec. 1944, Box 1, fd 4. See U.S., Utah Commission, Mi- 
nority Report, by A. B. Carlton and John A. McClernand (Springfield, IL: Springfield 
Printing Co., 1887); Stewart L. Grow, “A Study of the Utah Commission, 1882-96,” 
Ph.D. diss.. University of Utah, 1954. 


Chapter 5 

means? I believe, without any positive, definite, or specific facts to 
justify my conclusion, that representative, potent men of the 
Church gave to individual leaders of the Republican Party in 
Congress the assurance that if they would support the bill provid- 
ing statehood for Utah if Church leaders would (as they did) 
contribute their might to secure such a division on political lines 
in Utah as would give the Republicans a fair or good chance to 
control the state, if not to make it Republican. That apparent 
pledge may have been made because of fear of failure and the 
desire to make statehood certain. But it would at the same time 
have given to the Church leaders a dominating power in the state 
of the majority of both parties. I am morally certain that such was 
desirable in the minds of Church leaders. It is not in the nature of 
man to voluntarily yield the exercise of power. They had exercised 
that political power wisely as a rule, and it had proven profitable 
at least to the great majority of those governed under a local 
government that was practically a union of church and state. I 
assert with absolute certainty that it was a good and benevolent 
government, with extremely low taxes and salaries. In fact taxes 
were so low that improvements imperatively needed when the 
Liberals came into power justified a change in the city government 
of Salt Lake which was without water except as it ran down the 
street in open ditches and was obtainable in surface wells, and 
consequently no sewers, no street pavement, or graded schools. It 
required a revolutionary change and it was obtained only with 
greatly increased taxation and an extravagance of expenditures 
that alarmed the primitive pioneers, natives who were opposed to 
both debt and extravagance in government, as well as in their own 
affairs. There was a real clash of fundamental and opposing 
elements, but withal it resulted in progress . 141 

I was intimately associated with some of the leaders who were 
active in Washington as well as at home in getting statehood. It is 
significant that so many of these were Republicans, among them 
John Henry Smith and Joseph F. Smith. Brigham Young’s son-in- 
law, Bishop Hiram Clawson, was something of a diplomat and was 
also involved. The only Democrats I recall now were Repre- 
sentatives John T. Caine; Charles M. Penrose, editor of the Deseret 


49 Memorandum dated June 1943, Box 10, fd 1. 

Lawyer, Legislator, and Democrat 

News; and Franklin S. Richards, Church attorney and leader of the 
Peoples Party. What is singularly important is that the Republicans 
were the most numerous, probably because they had the most 
difficult job if Republican votes were necessary. My conclusion has 
always been that the leaders of the Church wanted to make certain 
of what seemed within their reach. They agreed to effect a division 
of the Mormon people (who had always been on the Democratic 
side and believers in states’ rights) that would insure for the 
Republicans an equal chance with the Democrats for supremacy. 
Having made that promise they proceeded to make it good in the 
only way it could be accomplished with the result that they, the 
leaders of the Church, honestly came to believe in Republican 

That the leaders of the Church had the welfare of the people 
at heart there is no question, but neither do I question that they 
became real partisans who, like myself, enjoyed tremendously 
victory for their party. I also think they were influenced just like 
other partisans are, but there is to my mind no question that there 
was some lack of that broad and deep comprehension of obligation 
and duty that they should have felt as Church leaders. In other 
words, they were like other men in politics. But ingratitude is base. 
I still think they should not have obligated themselves to do their 
utmost to make Utah Republican at its first election under state- 
hood. If that obligation were required, then yielding to it increased 
the offense. I cannot believe they would do that, but I know the 
innocent, the confiding, the devout, and especially the over- 
religious were confronted and felt safe in following their religious 
“file leaders” into the Republican Party. The result was that the 
more religious as a rule did become Republicans. Those who 
remained Democratic were very generally of the more inde- 
pendent class . 50 

I knew many who were as ardent in their Democratic sympathy 
and belief as I was one day, and on the next were announced as 
Republican candidates for office. I believe many were influenced 
by the belief that most of the influential churchmen were going 
Republican, which would make that party dominant. It was a fact 
that very many religious leaders who were too sincerely Demo- 

50 Memorandum dated Dec. 1944, Box 1, fd 4. 


Chapter 5 

cratic to change their politics simply kept quiet through all of this 
because they wanted to avoid displeasing the Brethren. I believe 
Heber J. Grant was one of these, though he did at times speak his 
mind, and to his credit he did denounce the Federal Bunch for 
their opposition to prohibition . 51 

I think additionally that the Valley Tan doctrine Brigham 
taught of supporting home industry had a real influence in favor 
of the Republicans because of their doctrine of the protective 
tariff. Brigham, like my grandfather Daniel Wood and old Nauvoo 
Mormons, believed in “free trade and sailors’ rights,” but Valley 
Tan production of Utah was a purely local matter. Its support was 
advocated because the people tended to prefer eastern manufac- 
tures. They were more elegant and fashionable. Our Valley Tan 
leather was tanned at home. Our shoes and boots were made by 
our own shoemakers in their homes and the industry the Church 
created. But many people associated Valley Tan with products of 
eastern factories and believed that as Valley Tan should be encour- 
aged so should the eastern factories be protected against English 
competition by a protective tariff. The two were very different, but 
the average Mormon could not see that difference. ^ 

To Wilford Woodruff 

On at least one occasion I should relate, I protested to the 
Brethren over the gumshoers and their actions. During an inter- 
view with Wilford Woodruff, Joseph F. Smith, and John Henry 
Smith, I presented the charge of the Democrats that Francis M. 
Lyman and John Henry Smith had made it their business while 
acting as Apostles and visiting Church conferences and priesthood 
meetings to put their big arms and bodies around Church leaders 
and influential members after meetings and urge them to follow 
their file leaders and become Republicans when they knew the 
parties approached were Democrats, or would be if left alone. This 
so aroused John Henry that he interrupted me, but President 
Woodruff was fully equal to the situation and promptly said 

51 Memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd 2. See Roper and Arrington, Wil- 
liam Spry, pp. 81-86, for a brief survey of the liquor control controversy of 1909. 

52 Memorandum dated Aug. 1945, Box 12, fd 4. See Brigham Young, sermons, 
Journal of Discourses, 9:32-35, 10:201-205. 


Lawyer, Legislator, and Democrat 

emphatically, “Brother John, the gentleman has the floor. Do not 
interrupt him.” But the charge was never answered. ’’ 

Because of this kind of an experience, I never lost my great 
respect and love for President Woodruff. He had a fine adobe 
home of his own where the Interurban Railroad Station is now. It 
was sufficient enough that when the old Townsend House on the 
same corner a block south got out of date, they made a hotel out 
of it called the “Valley House.” It became quite popular and was 
only two blocks away from the principal railroad station. The 
Denver and Rio Grande station was a block south and two west 

At all events, President Woodruff was more completely at 
home in his little modest home at the farm, which is still standing. 
I was called there to advise him legally about his domestic relations 
when he was on the underground. In driving past not many years 
before, it was easy to see him hoeing corn or working at farming 
from the street. That was true when Fifth East was the only 
boulevard out of Salt Lake. It was the only speeding ground or the 
best one in Salt Lake for fast-trotting horses and pacers. I indulged 
my pacing horse there. The course ran from Ninth South to 
Twenty-first South. 

Though polygamous households varied, they were of neces- 
sity plain and simple. Social grades and distinctions were not 
encouraged. People then lived on a plane and in greater uniform- 
ity. Necessity, utility, and simple comfort were the great consid- 
erations. I imagine President Snow took more kindly to luxury 
and social refinements because he had the appearance of the 
artistic and intellectual. Though spiritually minded, he was not 
comparable with President Woodruff who was distinctly spiritual. 
I enjoyed hearing Brother Woodruff. It flowed from him with a 
rapidity yet smoothness and naturalness that indicated impressive 
sincerity. To me, it came from him naturally with a ceaseless 
evenness that reminded me of a stream of clear water from an 
abundant spring. ’ 1 

53 Undated memoranda. Box 8, fds 5, 7. The date of this interview is not clear 
from Moyle’s notes, but it probably occurred in 1892 or 1893 during the height of the 
controversy over church interference in behalf of the Republicans. 

54 Memorandum dated May 1944, Box 10, fd 6. See Leonard J. Arrington and 


Chapter 5 

Early Utah Democrats 

Regardless of the Church efforts to build up the Republican 
Party, it seemed to me that the best men in Utah were Democrats. 
The Utah Republicans had no figures comparable with Utah 
Democrats— all the leading public men of the state at the outset 
were Democrats. Rawlins, King, Roberts, and Thatcher had no 
Utah Republican counterparts of the same class. John Henry Smith 
did not compare with Thatcher or Roberts. Frank J. Cannon was 
as brilliant as any, but not as impressive or powerful as Roberts, 
and even he became Democratic later. Sutherland was a good 
speaker, but not as ready or fluent as William Henderson. Arthur 
Brown was not at all in O. W. Powers’s class, though he was clever 
and effective, especially as a lawyer. Congressman Clarence E. 
Allen was not in competition with such as Rawlins, King, or 
Henderson. He did not last long either and was never first-class. 
Joseph Howell was just ordinary. It was Democracy in the forma- 
tive period of politics in Utah that attracted the best political minds 
of the territory and young state. The Utah Republicans with 
Mormon origin, except possibly George Sutherland, were pretty 
much all handmade rather than seasoned or instilled in national 
party politics, principles, and policy. 

Among early Democrats, King, Roberts, and Thatcher were 
the most outstanding. They had no equals except perhaps Orland 
W. Powers and Judge Henderson who were Gentiles. Fisher Harris, 
also a non-Mormon, flourished for a short time, but never reached 
greatness. Judge Thurman was not so outstanding and conspicu- 
ous but exhibited profound wisdom in his thinking and counsel, 
though slow in action and expression, with a vein of wit and 
humor. Franklin S. Richards was active and a good, sensible, and 
thoughtful speaker and leader. He distinguished himself as a 
political leader of the Peoples Party of the Territory and never 
really acted in the Democratic Party following the dissolution of 
the Peoples Party. He was hampered and his influence lessened by 
his being the leading attorney for the Church whose leaders were 

Davis Bitton, The Mormon Experience: A History of the Latter-day Saints (New York: Al- 
fred A. Knopf, 1979), pp. 161-84; Thomas G. Alexander, Things in Heaven and Earth: 
The Life and Times ofWilford Woodruff a Mormon Prophet (Salt Lake City: Signature 
Books, 1991). 


Lawyer, Legislator, and Democrat 

increasingly interested in creating and promoting the Republican 
Party. I presume that is what led him to end frequently his 
statements in private discussions with “This is subrosa.” His activi- 
ties virtually faded out in the new organization even though he was 
conspicuous, able, and ever prominent in the organization of the 
Democratic Party. His brother, Charles C. Richards, was younger, 
probably more wily, resourceful, but always honorable and virile 
as a leader. He was the first Mormon presidential appointee of his 
time— secretary of the territory. He was and would have continued 
to be an outstanding Democratic leader of the first rank had he 
continued to play ball. His vital weakness was not lack of ability, 
but lack of adaptability, or the ability to harmonize and go along 
with other leaders with whom he differed but had to work with if 
he was to continue on as a vital force. His decline and retirement 
then was due to his own stiffnecked action. " 

C. C. Richards did not remain active in politics very long after 
statehood. He was active in 1898 as the leader of the forces backing 
William Henderson for Senator and received votes in the conven- 
tion himself for Senator that same year. He also led the fight for 
the primary election law which I did not oppose but had serious 
doubts about. It seemed to me that primaries were useful only in 
one-party states such as we have in the South. 51 ’ 

LeGrand Young, nephew of Brigham Young, was a highly 
respected Democrat of the more refined type. He was very pro- 
nounced in his views, but he was never very active as a working 
Democrat of the same period. Again, Heber J. Grant was always a 
pronounced Democrat in those days. When the tariff became a 
very prominent issue, and especially with the Church deeply 
interested in sugarbeets, he became a pro-tariff Democrat and has 
grown more so as time progressed and he became closely associ- 
ated with leaders of what we call the “big interests” or “fat fellows,” 
especially the big bankers and industrialists. His long directorship 
in the Union Pacific Railroad and leading business corporations 
of the state, and his natural interest in business and acquaintances 
with the great industrial leaders and bankers of the nation, have 
all made him more Republican than Democrat. Since his great 

55 Memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd 3 (Item 3). 

56 Memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd 3 (Item 4). 


Chapter 5 

virtue is frankness, he freely admits that while calling himself a 
Democrat he has generally voted for Republican candidates for 
President . 57 

The Rise and Fall of Joseph L. Rawlins 

I would like to say something more specific about two of these 
Democrats. Joseph L. Rawlins, a native son of the pioneers who 
had led successfully and brilliantly the fight for Democratic free- 
dom and supremacy in Utah with the support of the first Demo- 
cratic President since Lincoln, had as a regard for his inestimable 
accomplishment and leadership one term as United States Sena- 
tor, and that was accomplished only with the aid of the Silver 
Republicans. In spite of all he had done, he was thus temporarily 
to be honored and elevated only to be made to fall the farther 
(when the deal was carried to its full fruition) into humiliation, 
obscurity, and oblivion. His disgust and disappointment was so 
great that he allowed himself to pass into oblivion, forgotten by 
those who gained most by his loyalty to Utah and brilliant states- 
manship and devotion to liberating Utah from the serfdom and 
millstone-grinding under which her people had suffered so long, 
notwithstanding their persistent and unanswered appeals to the 
Republican administrations for thirty-six years to grant Utah the 
democratic right to govern itself that all its less-qualified neighbors 
had already received. 

Rawlins made the manifest mistake that taught me my deter- 
mination not to let disappointment, injustice, and ingratitude of 
others sour and kill my own soul and die achievement of the 
possibilities of that life. Rawlins could have achieved and accom- 
plished much in the place of seeking seclusion and developing its 
souring, uncheerful atmosphere. I presume he concluded to let 
the unbiased, future historian record the merits he so richly earned 
for his posterity to read while he died in obscurity. His funeral was 
conducted with extreme modesty in his son-in-law’s home in Salt 
Lake City, and his burial was without pomp. 

I visited Washington during his one term in the Senate and 

57 Memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 19 fd 3 (Item 3). See Frank H. Jonas 
and Garth N. Jones, “Utah Presidential Elections, 1896-1952,” Utah Historical Quarterly 
24 (Oct. 1956): 280-307. 


Lawyer, Legislator, and Democrat 

spent some time with him in the lobby room at the entrance of 
the Senate chamber when the Senate was in session. He was then 
the chairman of the committee of the Senate that had charge of 
the measures affecting the all-important question of what we 
should do with the colonies acquired from Spain in the Spanish- 
American War. Was America to become an empire with a colonial 
system such as had been inflicted on Utah or worse? Rawlins was 
the Democratic leader on that most burning question while we 
thus sat in the lobby. Frequent interruptions were made in our 
conversations by Senators who came to be advised by their leader 
on that issue. I was accordingly impressed with his important 
leadership and his natural dignity that so well became the high 
place he held in the Senate and in the respect his fellow Senators 
held so manifestly for him. No man from Utah ever sat in the 
Senate with equal natural dignity doubled with fitting leadership 
on such an important and burning issue as our colonial policy 
was then. 

Reed Smoot became quite as prominent as Rawlins, but he was 
not so outstanding as a leader on a burning issue, and not so 
eloquent. It is due Senator Smoot, bitterly as I opposed him, that 
he did rise to greater distinction in his field of national finance, 
but that was rather due to his long tenure in office, his indefatiga- 
ble and persistent labor. He did the work behind the scenes for a 
long time burnishing the munitions for the fight, and finally did 
become chairman of the committee on ways and means that 
framed our present tariff. He did reach a position in the national 
Republican Party in the all-important permanent sphere of finance 
due to his plodding, persistent industry. I want him given full 
credit, notwithstanding my bitter partisan opposition to him. 
Senators William H. King and Frank J. Cannon were outstanding, 
brilliant speakers compared with Smoot, but neither made the 
record he did, or attained the outstanding leadership that Rawlins 
did in his one term.™ 

In conclusion, the state was ungrateful to Rawlins, the ablest 
statesman Utah ever sent to the Senate. He was head-and-shoulders 
superior to either Cannon or Brown yet was defeated for Senator 

58 Undated memorandum. Box 8, (d 9. 


Chapter 5 

immediately following his statehood bill. I feel that he should be 
honored more. 1 ’ 

The Rise and Fall of Moses Thatcher 

Finally, I have some thoughts on the case of Moses Tlntcher, 
the fallen apostle. Moses Thatcher was reduced from a lighest 
place in the Church and in the hearts of the people to thelowest 
because of his firm beliefs in the principles of Democracy aid the 
Constitution of the United States. Anyone who has real his 
defense of his actions in defiance of his fellow apostles anc then 
the story of his humble submission and acceptance of the erms 
upon which he was admitted back to full membership and ftllow- 
ship in the Church will recognize his soul of steel, his intellectual 
superiority, and his dominating character. It is also a testimoiy of 
his firm knowledge of the divinity of the Gospel and compareswith 
the stalwart testimonies of the three witnesses of the Bode of 
Mormon who all left the Church but never denied their statements 
of the divinity of the book ." 0 

Thatcher was a patriotic and brilliant intellect, a Jeffersoiian 
Democrat of the first order who was loved by Democrats in Uah 
as no other man was, an Apostle of the Church of the first raik, 
and a leader intellectually second to none, but he permited 
political ambition to so dominate his thinking that he lost he 
beam, the spiritual highway. He failed to affiliate, cooperate, aid 
go along with his fellow members of the Council of the Twele. 
Had he attended his council meetings when he could, I believe le 
would have been saved some of his illness, and much of the sorrcw 
and humiliation that tortured his soul. 

He asserted his right to act independently in politics withoit 
counseling with his brethren or obtaining approval or even seeking 
it. At the same time, Francis M. Lyman and John Henry Smiti 

59 Memorandum dated Aug. 1945, Box 12, fd 4. Rawlins was elected delegate t< 
the House of Representatives in 1892 where he drafted the statehood bill for Utah. 

He was elected to the Senate in 1897 and was defeated for reelection in 1903. 

60 Memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd 2. See N. L. Nelson, An Open Let- 
ter to Moses Thatcher (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Publishing Co., 1897); Stanley S. Iv- 
ins, The Moses Thatcher Case (Salt Lake City: Modern Microfilms, n.d.); Moses 
Thatcher, The Issues of the Times! (Salt Lake City: Herald Publishing Co., 1892); The 
Thatcher Episode (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Publishing Co., 1896). 


Lawyer, Legislator, and Democrat 

beyond the slightest doubt promoted the welfare of the Republi- 
can Party presumably by order of the President of the Church as 
well as their fellow members. It looked as if they had been selected 
to do the work of securing a political division on national lines in 
favor of the Republicans. If so, it was a violation of the pledge to 
keep the affairs of the Church separate from that of the state. It 
certainly did have that appearance. And Thatcher fearlessly 
charged that the Church had violated its word and upon that 
charge he took his unalterable stand. 

If Moses Thatcher had counseled and sought approval of his 
taking part in politics and had been denied the privilege, what 
would have happened? I do not know, but I know that Thatcher 
believed in and was inclined to follow the rule of the majority even 
though he was nearly alone in his position . 61 

Another thing that brought about Thatcher’s downfall was 
that he lived in Logan in the extreme north. He was never so closely 
associated with Church activities as some of the other Apostles, 
and at this time he was out of harmony with his Quorum and the 
President of the Church on many issues. In fact, it was known to 
not a very few that he was a user of tobacco and liquor, and to a 
very few, a still more objectionable narcotic. His friends claimed 
this was used as a medicine for his serious stomach trouble. His 
stomach trouble was serious, but the necessity for whiskey and 
tobacco was questioned and particularly the extent to which he 
used them. In view of the importance of the Word of Wisdom in 
the lives of Mormons and especially among their leaders, there is 
little in the ordinary conduct of a Mormon that is emphasized so 
much as the importance of keeping the Word of Wisdom and 
especially the non-use of liquor and tobacco. Keeping the Word 
of Wisdom and paying tithing are the two outward evidences of 
being a real Mormon. Honesty and morality go without saying as 
being imperative, but the Word of Wisdom is outward proof of 
Mormonism. I am satisfied that Thatcher could have appropriately 
and safely avoided very largely the use of liquor, tobacco, and 
narcotics, even though I have always viewed his weakness from a 
very friendly and charitable viewpoint. I agree with Paul that a little 
liquor may be good for the stomach and that was especially true 

61 Memorandum dated June 1943, Box 10, fd 1. 


Chapter 5 

in the 1890s. Scientists now know that there are better drugs than 
liquor or tobacco for the uses to which the two were then used. 
But I go back to the days of Moses Thatcher when it was generally 
believed whiskey was a good medicine for much more than snake 
bites. I was reared in the belief that good intoxicating liquor was 
a desirable thing to have in the house for colds, poison antidote, 
and a needed stimulation. Certainly it was beneficial for the latter. 

I know it was used by many of the orthodox, best Latter-day Saints 
to some extent as late as the 1880s and 1890s if not later, although 
its use in general was always depreciated and an effort made to 
avoid it. Nevertheless, I frequently heard Paul’s saying quoted in 
private, and still do.'" 

There was, I believe, another extenuating fact in Moses 
Thatcher’s drinking. He was of Virginian birth, and in Virginia in 
his time, like North Carolina in mine, most every farmer or his 
neighbor made moonshine or hard liquor most generally for 
themselves and friendly neighbors. The Thatchers had always used 
it, and I am certain that if Moses had only used it and possibly 
tobacco, for which there was much less excuse, purely as a medi- 
cine, it would have been overlooked had he otherwise continued 
in harmony and attended or obtained excuse for nonattendance 
at his quorum meetings. He undoubtedly excused himself when 
he attended business and political meetings, but he was in very 
poor health and also had some excuse on that ground. I say that 
because of the severe criticism he received for his nonattendance 
at quorum meetings.' 1 ' 

The humiliation and disappointment he suffered notwith- 
standing, he demonstrated his devotion to the Church and re- 
mained after it all a loyal and humble member of the Church, while 
those in the leadership of the Church who were actively opposed 
to his former course enjoyed all the honors of the high place he 
had held so long among the people. It did embitter him, but not 
sufficiently to break the bands and bonds greater than steel that 
bound him to the Church while life remained. To me it is evidence 
of the highest quality of the more than human influence and power 


62 Memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd 2. See 1 Tim. 5:23. 

63 Ibid. Thatcher was born in Illinois. 

Lawyer, Legislator, and Democrat 

that binds one to the Church who has what the Mormons call a 
knowledge of the divinity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 64 

Moses Thatcher’s infirmities and natural taste for stimulants 
led him to this use of liquor, tobacco, and other habit-forming 
drugs which were clearly in conflict with the letter and spirit of the 
Word of Wisdom. The extent of that use I do not know but that it 
was enough to be inconsistent with his position as an apostle, or 
just as a member of the Church, is beyond question in my opinion. 
I saw him smoking a cigar in the presence of other Democrats in 
a conference at Logan when I was a candidate for governor in 
1900. He was also apparently addicted to the use of opium or 
something of the kind, but it was claimed that he did it to deaden 
pain. That he lost much of the spirit of his religion by permitting 
personal feelings and antagonisms against George Q. Cannon and 
others is also unquestionable in my opinion. They were leaders in 
opposing political views and policies at a time when we were taking 
our politics much as seriously as we did our religion. The leader- 
ship of the Church was following a political policy to which he was 
bitterly opposed and so was I; namely, trying to make Utah 
Republican. That produced a friction with which he should have 
been able to deal more diplomatically. But it did antagonize on 
both sides. His conduct and action generally placed him out of 
harmony with his more prudent brethren (whether right or 
wrong). He finally rebelled lo such an extent that his expulsion 
from the Twelve was inevitable and necessary at least from the 
point of consistency and harmony. He would not attend the 
quorum meetings or respond to their actions. Illness cut much of 
a figure in that, but he was adamant in his attitudes. Withal, much 
as I sympathized with him, I then concluded and have since been 
convinced that the action in deposing him was justified as the final 
actions of the General Authorities of the Church have been 

Thatcher exhibited not only high intelligence and ability as a 
speaker but also a love of freedom, independence, and an out- 
standing courage and ability as a leader comparable with any. He 
and George Q. Cannon were the masters of political and opposing 

64 Memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd 2. 

65 Undated memorandum. Box 8, fd 3. 

Chapter 5 

views and policies among Mormons, the former in the open and 
the other most effective behind the scenes. Cannon sat on the 
Democratic side of the House of Representatives and he did not 
want openly to go back on the Democrats, but he saw the necessity 
of the people actually dividing on national political lines and its 
impossibility if he joined with Thatcher in promoting Democracy. 
That was made impossible for the reason also that they were 
personal antagonists rather than the devoted brethren their reli- 
gious office and duties required. Again, Thatcher was out of 
harmony with the Quorum. Harmony in the work of the Priest- 
hood was and is not only the watchword but guiding star of the 
Church. Their ambitions were both for the first place in the state, 
and neither could stand to take a place outside the Church second 
to the other. Cannon was never a Democratic idol and had never 
expressed himself or made himself outstanding as an exponent of 
Democracy in general. Thatcher, on the other hand, had to the 
fullest extent, and was an ideal Democrat in the minds of lovers of 
Democracy. Cannon, if ever ardent, had only expressed himself in 
moderate terms. I conclude that he was never a strong Democrat 
except on the doctrine of state sovereignty and that for more or 
less selfish and Mormon interests. He did not live in the hearts of 
the Mormon people as a Democrat as Thatcher did. Thatcher, in 
fact, was as magnificent a Democrat as there was in the territory. 1 ’ 1 ’ 

I was also a Mormon Democrat during these years. And it was 
not an easy thing to be . 1 ’ 7 

66 Memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 20, fd 2. 

67 Memorandum dated Aug. 1 943, Box 8, fd 3. See also for the period of this 
chapter the following: Gene A. Sessions, ed., “A View of James Henry Moyle: His Dia- 
ries and Letters,” unpublished manuscript, 1974, CLA, p. 32; Jean Bickmore White, 
“Utah State Elections, 1895-1899,” Ph.D. diss.. University of Utah 1968; R. Davis Bit- 
ton, “The B. H. Roberts Case of 1898-1900,” Utah Historical Quarterly 25 (Jan. 1957): 
27-46; David B. Griffiths, “Far Western Populism: The Case of Utah, 1893-1900,” Utah 
Historical Quarterly 37 (Fall 1969): 396-407; undated memoranda, Box 6, fd 2; Box 8, 
fcls 3, 66; memorandum dated May 1943, Box 10, fd 1; memorandum dated Aug.- 
Sept. 1943, Box 10, fd 2; memorandum dated May 1944, Box 10, fd 6; memorandum 
dated Sept. 1945, Box 13, fd 1; Noble Warrum, ed., Utah Since Statehood, Historical and 
Biographical, 4 vols. (Salt Lake City: S.J. Clarke, 1919), 1:1-120. 


Chapter 6 


Under a Cloud 

I was under a cloud religiously from the early 1890s to the breaking 
up of the old Salt Lake Stake into four city stakes and two county 
stakes (making six out of one) in 1904. This occurred when Angus 
M. Cannon retired as president. During the latter part of Angus’s 
administration, he was softening and more appreciative of me, but 
he never recognized me publicly as before the break. When the 
new stakes were formed, I was made a high councilor in the Ensign 
Stake, and while such was made president of the Eastern States 
Mission in January of 1929. Since then it has been clear sailing, 
except when the Deseret News violently attacked Roosevelt editori- 
ally in 1936 about which I will say more later. There were other 
occasions, but I think my being under a cloud during the 1890s 
and early years of this century was completely due to my outspoken 
opposition to what seemed to be the political (Republican) policy 
of the leadership of the Church. 1 

I want to preface my remarks about that. It is passing strange, 
but not difficult to understand, that even David of old, so very 

1 Memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd 2; James Henry Moyle Collection, 
Library-Archives, Historical Department, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 
Salt Lake City, hereinafter cited as CLA. All references hereinafter to box and folder 
(fd) are for items from this collection. See Joseph Fielding Smith, Essentials in Church 
History, 24th ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1971), p. 602, on the reorganiza- 
tion of the Salt Lake Stake in 1904. 


Chapter 6 

blessed, fell to the lowest depths of depravity when he responded 
to the demands of that human instinct with which all men are 
blessed and cursed and which led him to the crime of murder and 
adultery. At the same time it shows that he respected the law and 
sought to honor it only in its outward observance and not in its 
spirit and purpose. His life was the greatest example of how 
goodness and baseness may occur in the life of the same soul. I am 
impressed with the truthfulness of the Bible and that those who 
wrote it were devoted to the truth. It is more than possible that 
they lived in a grosser age than ours and that the baseness and 
degradation of David’s action was not then viewed in the light of 
today. Otherwise, they might have felt that the good of the cause 
would justify the elimination from history of that story, just as I 
am advised to eliminate that which has occurred in my life in order 
to avoid discrediting great and good men with whom I came in 
contact and conflict, and just as I may eliminate the exposure of 
my own weaknesses in my writing about my own past, and magnify 
my virtues if I have them. The only determination at which I can 
honestly arrive is to do the best 1 can in my own weakness, but 
never if possible fail to present courageously the facts that would 
enlighten those who are entitled to know the truth. Let the truth 
aid them in avoiding the errors of others. 2 

As to activities in political affairs of Church authorities, I have 
never said they did not have the right or that they should be 
deprived of the right. I must not hesitate to say, however, that I do 
not believe in it or tbink it wise, and believe it is detrimental to the 
unity and harmony that should exist in the Church. 3 

Periods of Church Politicalism 

I cannot help contemplating what has happened and what 
might have happened if the leadership of the Church had not 
interfered in politics— not altogether openly but in private expres- 
sions of what should be and what should not be. Those expressions 
were conveyed to susceptible voters by those who were denounced 
by me and many others as Republican gumshoers, underground 
conveyors of the word and alleged will of God that the Republicans 


2 Memorandum dated Dec. 1944, Box 1, fd 4. 

3 Memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd 2. 

A Mormon Politician 

should win. That was most notable in the administration of Presi- 
dent Joseph F. Smith (October 17, 1901, to November 19, 1918). 
His counselors were John R. Winder, a good Democrat and fine 
man, and Anthon H. Lund, a Republican and most excellent man, 
but neither were men who would say or do anything in opposition 
to the President even if they felt strongly. But then, all General 
Authorities are extremely deferential to the President on the 
theory that he is a Prophet of God. Winder died March 27, 1910, 
and John Henry Smith filled the vacancy as second counselor. He 
was a robust, likeable, but cantankerously partisan Republican who 
openly espoused the cause of his party. 

John Henry Smith died October 13, 1911, and Charles W. 
Penrose, a splendid Democrat, succeeded him. Penrose had plenty 
of courage, but he was helpless. Then Heber J. Grant (November 
23, 1918) became President with Lund and Penrose as counselors. 
Then followed a period of noninterference in politics, especially 
when Anthony W. Ivins became second counselor on the death of 
Lund in March of 1921. He was a beloved cousin of the President, 
a far-seeing clear thinker and able man, and just as good a 
Democrat as any. He became first counselor following the death 
of Penrose (May 16, 1925). That condition continued so long as 
Ivins was counselor or until J. Reuben Clark filled a vacancy in the 
First Presidency in 1933. Then a clear change soon took place, but 
that is a subject for later discussion. 

President Woodruff (1887 to 1898), who preceded President 
Snow, was a Democrat and honored me with calls for legal advice. 
He was in no sense unfriendly to me and yet tolerated the activities 
of Francis M. Lyman and John Henry Smith. The policy then was 
clearly Republican, but there were good Democrats in the Presi- 
dency from the death of George Q. Cannon in 1901 untilj. Reuben 
Clark. Grant, Penrose, and Ivins were all good Democrats, except 
for Grant’s affiliation with the big financiers and J. Reuben Clark. 
Until Clark there was no Church interference in politics in Grant’s 
administration, because Ivins was the one man who would not 
stand for that. He had a real influence with President Grant, but 
after the death of Ivins and during the Clark period, noninterfer- 
ence was a thing of the past. 

So far as I know, President Snow was not especially partisan. 
I presumed he was a Democrat, but never knew just what his 

Chapter 6 

politics were. I had practically nothing to do with him except 
during the foreclosure of the Deseret Savings Bank. I know he 
made himself popular with Senator Tom Kearns and his Salt Lake 
Tribune by somehow aiding in his election. Kearns was another 
who became Senator with no qualifications for the office except a 
good supply of common sense and plenty of money obtained from 
the discovery of the Silver King Mine at Park City. He had been a 
common, uneducated miner. Snow followed the course in vogue 
during the Woodruff administration to work so far as politics was 
concerned through George Q. Cannon, the chief intellectual and 
politician of the Taylor, Woodruff, and Snow administrations. 
J. Reuben Clark seems to have a similar role during the latter part 
of HeberJ. Grant’s regime/ 

Fight for the Senate, 1898 

I contributed to Cannon’s political Waterloo in the legislature 
of 1898 when he and Moses Thatcher fought each other for the 
Senatorship. I had supported Joseph L. Rawlins, and his sub- 
sequent triumph secured for me Rawlins’s friendship thereafter 
and led him to nominate me for the Senate. Cannon lost prestige 
when he tried to use religious pressure to induce old-time loyal 
Democrats to vote for his election to the Senate as a Republican. 
This was an arch inconsistency which inevitably led to his downfall. 
The political ambition of Thatcher, also an apostle of the Church, 
cost him his apostleship and standing in the Church that he valued 
as highly as life itself. So both met an inglorious defeat in the 
legislature of 1898, and clearly demonstrated the futility of even 
great men attempting to be both political and ecclesiastical leaders 
at the same time in a government where political parties are 
controlling and voters divide on political lines and religion is not 
involved. The lesson was profound: He who feeds upon the 
exercise of power develops an appetite and a love for it, and for 
the exercise of greater power, and never voluntarily yields that 
exercise to another. The Church leaders did not seem to recognize 
the truth when they were inspired with political ambition, or when 

4 Memorandum dated July 1945, Box 12, fd 3. See O. N. Malmquist, The First 
100 Years: A History of the Salt Lake Tribune, 1871-1971 (Salt Lake City: Utah State His- 
torical Society, 1971), pp. 178-91. 


A Mormon Politician 

they involved themselves in politics in a more general way. In 
America politics and religion should never be entangled. If there 
is one thing more than any other that I have recognized through- 
out my life, it is that simple fact, and my record thereon is one of 
my greatest sources of pride. 3 

I was chairman of the State Democratic Committee in 1898 
that overwhelmingly elected state and legislative officers, and that 
legislature was so nearly all Democratic that it became entangled 
in a deadlock over the election of a United States Senator. A large 
majority of the Democrats were pledged to A. W. McCune. During 
the last hour of the legislature, when all other resources had failed, 
the Democratic members caucused and asked Senator Rawlins to 
name the man for whom they should vote in order to break the 
deadlock. To my surprise, he nominatedjames H. Moyle, but there 
was just a sufficient number of those who were hog-tied to McCune 
to prevent the election, and McCune, notwithstanding the impor- 
tunities of his friends and many of his supporters, refused to 
release his votes, although he always professed to be a friend of 
mine. 5 6 7 My chances also suffered when Aaron F. Farr, Moses 
Thatcher’s father-in-law, charged without the slightest justification 
in truth that I had conspired for the nomination. The simple truth 
was that Rawlins had been asked to name the man for them to vote 
for because the hour of midnight (Saturday) approached. It had 
been agreed after days of deadlock that the long legislative day 
could not be extended thereafter.' 

When Cannon died in 1901, and Moses Thatcher went into 
oblivion, there was an apparent end to ecclesiastes aspiring to high 
office in Utah where that rule had previously prevailed. B. H. 
Roberts’s untimely political experience also contributed to it. 
Strangely enough, both Roberts and Thatcher were strong and 
sincere advocates of the separation of church and state, and both 
had the leadership of the Church against them and they antago- 
nized the leadership of the Church in politics. The denunciation 

5 Memorandum dated July 1945, Box 12, fd 3. 

6 Memorandum dated Mar. 1932, Box 9, fd 3. 

7 Memorandum dated Sept.-Oct. 1942, Box 9, fd 6. See Stewart L. Grow, 

“Utah’s Senatorial Election of 1899: The Election That Failed,” Utah Historical Quar- 
terly 39 (Winter 1971): 30-39. 


Chapter 6 

of Apostle-Senator Smoot by B. H. Roberts in the Salt Lake 
Theater when I was chairman of the meeting exceeded that of all 
others. And he meant it. It was purely political with no mention 
of religion or religious office. He charged Smoot with having 
befouled his own nest and having pinned the scarlet letter on his 
mother’s breast, meaning thereby his polygamous birth and his 
mother, a plural wife, which relationship the Senator had dishon- 
ored by his repudiation of polygamy. 1 ’ 

The 1900 Governor’s Race 

I was nominated for governor in 1900 on the second ballot, 
with the combined opposition of George W. Thatcher, brother of 
Moses Thatcher, and at a time when Moses Thatcher was the 
leading person in the party, and Aquila Nebeker, also a candidate, 
who was president of the State Senate and a strong, popular man. ' 
I always received generously any nomination 1 sought from the 
Democratic Party. In fact they were all but unanimous both for 
governor twice and Senator once, except that first time (1900) I 
ran for governor. George W. Thatcher was also a son-in-law of 
President Brigham Young, prominent businessman, and leader in 
the building of the Utah Northern Railroad from Ogden north 
through Cache Valley to Idaho. The other, Nebeker, was a colorful 
rancher from Laketown whose wholesome, appealing figure 
clothed in the best ranch outfit, with a heavy fur overcoat and 
broad-brimmed hat, could frequently be seen on Main Street and 
was greatly admired by those who knew him. He later became 
United States Marshal for Utah and distinguished himself in that 
office. 8 9 10 

When a candidate for governor in 1900, I consequently had 
the opposition of Moses Thatcher, because I had supported Rawl- 

8 Memorandum dated July 1945, Box 12, fd 3. See Milton R. Merrill, "Reed 
Smoot, Apostle in Politics,” Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1950, pp. 132-34. See 
also the various derivatives from Merrill’s 520-page dissertation: “Theodore Roosevelt 
and Reed Smoot,” Western Political Quarterly 4 (Sept. 1951): 440-53; Reed Smoot, Utah 
Politician (Logan: Utah State Agricultural College, 1953); “Reed Smoot, Apostle-Sena- 
tor,” Utah Historical Quarterly 28 (1960): 342-49; “Reed Smoot, Apostle in Politics,” 
Western Humanities Review 9 (1954-55): 1-12. 

9 Memorandum dated Mar. 1932, Box 9, fd 3. 

10 Memorandum dated Sept.-Oct. 1942, Box 9, fd 6. 


A Mormon Politician 

ins for the Senate in 1896 when Thatcher was a candidate, and had 
defeated his brother for the nomination in 1 900. It had been a very 
bitter fight on Thatcher’s side. When I went to Logan, Thatcher’s 
hometown and special bailiwick where his influence was dominant 
and Democratic, I was presented with a statement from the county 
committee demanding that I pledge myself to make no appoint- 
ment affecting Cache County without the approval of the 
Thatcherite county committee. Such action would normally be in 
line with his policy, as he was a real party man, but its obvious 
purpose was not the welfare of the party or county, but solely to 
insure the exclusion of any honor or office being conferred on a 
non-Thatcher man, which would eliminate some of the best men 
in the county and especially my real supporters in the county. My 
answer was in harmony with my life’s ideals: “If I am ever governor, 
I will be the governor untrammeled. You can rely on my having 
the welfare of the party at heart and acting accordingly, but no one 
will dictate to me what I shall do. I will be damned if I will not be 
a free governor.” The result was that one of the safest Democratic 
counties came near going Republican. 

Threat to Utah’s Democratic Party 

When I ran the second time in 1904, Moses Thatcher was 
evidently sorry and was so enthusiastic for me that he had to be 
urged to be more moderate." The same men and violent enemies 
in 1900, then, were over-zealous in my behalf in 1904, and the most 
conspicuous among these was Moses Thatcher himself. IJ Thatcher 
was very active in 1904 in my campaign for governor in Cache 
County. He tried very hard to make up for his opposition in 1900. 
But it is also true that he no longer took a big part, because he was 
out as a top man." 

Notwithstanding Thatcher’s added support, I again went 
down in the defeat the Democrats sustained during the campaign 
of Alton Parker for President. The party was greatly injured by its 
own disunity (from 1898), and by the support given to the Repub- 
licans by the leadership of the Church. The trend of national 

11 Memorandum dated Sept.-Oct. 1943, Box 10, fd 3. 

12 Memorandum dated Sept.-Oct. 1942, Box 9, Id 6. 

13 Memorandum dated Sept.-Oct. 1943, Box 10, fd 2. 


Chapter 6 


events was also greatly against the Democratic Party, so much so 
that in the following election of 1 908 the Democrats failed to carry 
a single county in Utah, and elected only two members of the state 
house of representatives and two or three unimportant and scat- 
tered county officers, whose election was chiefly due to personal 
popularity, or charitable sympathy. " 

The Democrats were so depressed and disgruntled over events 
(that cannot be related here) that there was serious agitation for 
the disbandment of the party. This was the case with some of the 
very prominent leaders, so that in 1910 it was a serious question 
as to whether the party should be disbanded or not. I vigorously 
combatted any such proposition, and was therefore asked again to 
become state chairman, which I did, and the campaign resulted in 
the election of two state senators, a number of members of the 
lower house, and the carrying of a goodly number of counties. 
What was more important to the party, it was the beginning of the 
permanent rising popularity and growth of the party in Utah that 
has resulted in its becoming a worthy rival for the Republican 
Party, and is now claiming leadership in the state, having repeat- 
edly elected senators and governors and even complete state and 
national tickets. 15 

Campaign of 1914 

As the campaign for the Senate of 1914 against Smoot ap- 
proached, the party was down and pretty much out, but I was full 
of fight and entered the contest against the advice of friends with 
money like Colonel E. A. Wall, who had been a poor miner but 
was now a multi-millionaire. He said I could beat George Suther- 
land two years hence and he would back me for it, but that he 
would not waste money in an attempt to beat Smoot who was 

,4 Undated memorandum. Box 8, fd 1. Actually, only Washington County 
voted Democratic in both 1904 and 1980. The Democratic National Platform in 1904 
included a plank demanding the extermination of polygamy and the complete separa- 
tion of church and state, an indirect slap in the face of the church and Utah. See The 
Campaign Text Book of the Democratic Party of the United States, 1904 (New York: Demo- 
cratic National Committee, 1904), p. 21. See also Frank H. Jonas, “Utah: The Differ- 
ent State,” in Frank H. Jonas, ed., Politics in the American West (Salt Lake City: Univer- 
sity of Utah Press, 1969), pp. 329-30. 

15 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 1. 

A Mormon Politician 

believed to be invincible. I knew the contrary. And in addition to 
going all over the state and repairing the broken-down organiza- 
tion of the party, spending more than $7,000, 1 guaranteed a bank 
loan to the county candidates for $3,000 to be used in getting out 
the vote on election day with the further agreement that if they 
were not elected I would pay the entire amount. They were too 
uncertain to run the risk themselves. That made an obligation (as 
I recall) of $10,000, which was the limit Congress allowed for such 
an expenditure. 

I reorganized the party myself from Rich County to St. George. 
Simon Bamberger was the only Democrat of prominence who 
aided me, and with his auto and chauffeur we went to eastern and 
southern Utah. It was then that he caught my faith and vision and 
laid the foundation for his election as governor in 1916. On that 
trip, he offered to give me my choice of place in 1916 and offered 
to support my candidacy liberally. 

I said to Bamberger on that trip that if I ever became gov- 
ernor it would be without obligation to anyone but the voters of 
the state. I would not be under obligation to anyone. Those were 
my sentiments and I adhered to them throughout. Even National 
Committeeman William R. Wallace put up no money in 1914 
though he was well able to do it. He may have contributed a 
nominal amount, but the record was not preserved. Neither did 
the secretary of the committee, a businessman named Chauncey 
Overfield, offer any help, though he was a sincere friend always 
of mine, but not a large contributor. Wallace did no campaigning, 
in fact never did, and was not active in the campaign for me. I 
am told and believe he never was my friend. Even William H. 
King did no campaigning for me, and never mentioned my name 
in the few political speeches he made that did not interfere with 
his law business. He made no trips, except possibly one night to 
Logan, and I do not think he made that one solely for the 
committee. He made several speeches at and near Beaver when 
there for trial of a lawsuit, and I remember another at Ogden or 
nearby, but his activity was rare and did not interfere with his 
business. It was also his ambition to be Senator, but he too 
thought that Smoot could not be beaten, and that I would be 
handily defeated, and that would give him the chance to run in 
1916 against George Sutherland, who was not especially popular. 


Chapter 6 

He kept his good record, however, and realized what he hoped 
for. He was more of a politician than I was. Consequently, I did 
more hard, grassroots political work in the party than he did. 
His work was attending meetings and making speeches. That was 
where he shined. 1 " 

I say without hesitance or reservation of any kind that I would 
have defeated Senator Smoot in his bid for reelection to the Senate 
in 1914 but for the support Joseph F. Smith gave him. That 
support, of course, was not open, but through the Deseret News and 
other agencies at this command. President Smith let it be known 
that he believed there was a divine purpose in keeping the Apostle 
in the Senate. Had President Smith been living in 1932 and 
retained the political influence which he held in 1914, the Senator 
would not have been defeated by one so obscure and unknown to 
the political life of Utah as the university professor, Elbert D. 
Thomas, who suddenly appeared on the political horizon and was 
not even a popular speaker. The fact was that Senator Smoot was 
not popular with the independent and thinking members of the 
Church of which he was an apostle. There is much in the accom- 
plishments of Senator Smoot in Washington that is to be com- 
mended, but on the whole I feel certain his mingling political 
power with that of ecclesiastical authority was highly injurious to 
the Church and inconsistent with the pledge made by the Church 
leaders in obtaining statehood that they would refrain from politi- 
cal interference. 1 ' 

The President himself was free in saying to the faithful in 
private what he thought and hoped would be done, but he was 
guarded in his public utterances. A favorite expression of his was 
that he thought little about a party whose President (Van Buren) 
had admitted that our cause was just but that he could do nothing 
for us. That, though true, was a fatal flaw in Joseph F. Smith’s 
point-of-view. As I mentioned before, another point for both 

16 Memorandum dated Mar.-Apr. 1945, Box 12, fd 2. 

17 Memorandum dated Sept. 1944, Box 1, fd 1. The voting was so dose that on 
the morning after the election, Moyle believed he had been elected. After late counts 
in Weber and Washington counties, however, Smoot inched ahead and won. Jonas, 
“The Different State,” p. 331, indicates that Moyle lost the 1914 election because of 
his aloofness that created an aura of arrogance. Moyle ran as the candidate of both 
the Democratic and the Progressive (Bull Moose) parties. 


A Mormon Politician 

Joseph F. and John Henry was that a Democratic administration 
in Illinois had martyred their kinsmen. It followed that President 
Smith’s idea that it was the will of the Lord that Reed Smoot should 
be the Senator from Utah was gumshoed about the state. Frequent 
reports of that were made. There does not seem to be any doubt 
that he believed Smoot’s election to be the will of the Lord. And 
I can bear witness to the fact that the innocent Saints whose only 
thought was to do God’s will were played upon, and they became 
carriers of the word to others of their associations. Once in 1914, 
my wife was introduced as the wife of the next Senator from Utah, 
James H. Moyle. A good sister of the Relief Society objected in 
broken English saying, “No, that is Brother Smoot.”"* 


I repeat, but for the influence of Joseph F. Smith and the 
Church, I believe I would have defeated Smoot in 1914. As it was, 
he served eighteen more years in the Senate, and the measure of 
good or ill to the Church and the state that resulted can hardly be 
assessed. I will say in his behalf that without education, training, 
or previous political experience, and in the face of the bitterest 
and most unrelenting opposition based upon bigoted religious 
persecution, he stepped into the United States Senate and made 
himself one of the real leaders of his party. Smoot did all of this 
without any apparent talent or native brilliance, but solely by the 
application of untiring and unfailing work. It was said of him that 
he possessed an uncanny ability to work with figures; this resulted 
in his becoming influential in the fields of the tariff and govern- 
mental finance. He thus became chairman of the powerful Ways 
and Means Committee and a chief author of the famous Smoot- 
Hawley Tariff that still remains in force notwithstanding its many 
iniquities. I tend to believe the common charge that it was one of 
the chief causes of the greatest of all wars, World War II, under 
which the entire earth is now suffering the greatest travail. So was 
there a divinity in it all? 1 ' 

IK Memorandum dated July 1945, Box 12, fd 3. 

19 Memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd 2. See Gene A. Sessions, “A View 
of James Henry Moyle: His Diaries and Letters,” unpublished manuscript, 1974, CLA, 
pp. 86-88, 1-14; Merrill, “Smoot,” pp. 130-32. 

Chapter 6 

Smoot undoubtedly brought the Church into greater notice 
and ultimate popularity, at least in governmental circles. He had 
survived personal and religious persecution and prejudice unpar- 
alleled at that time. His success, if it may be so termed, occurred 
in the face of the fact that he did not appear to be particularly 
spiritual or religious. On the contrary, he frequently spoke in the 
rough language of a partisan westerner, not seldom indulging in 
expressions of “Hell!” and “My God!” and so on. Certainly this 
kind of behavior was unsuited in my opinion for an apostle of our 
Savior and a dignitary of the Church as well as the nation. It is 
questionable whether the Senator ever demonstrated any degree 
of esthetics or refinement. He was reared in a religious atmosphere 
and imbibed in it, but he was a businessman First and a churchman 
second. He was never a preacher or religious scholar, nor did he 
devote himself to religious study in an absorbing way. He was 
rather essentially practical and disposed to deal in mundane facts 
instead of spiritual theories and philosophy.’" 

He was certainly a prominent member of the Senate and did 
much there for his people and constituents, especially in securing 
employment and official places for them. His office was more of 
a veritable employment agency than that of any other member of 
Congress from Utah ever was. 

I have often wondered what I would have done in the Senate; 
would I have done as well as Smoot did? I have always worked hard 
and still do, because work gives me more happiness than anything 
else. I have no desire to cease working, yet I fancy that Smoot 
probably did more of it in the Senate than I would have done, and 
that probably 1 might not have done as well there as he did, but I 
am sure 1 would have done better than he did in some respects. 

I really believed what I once said to him, that he had made me 
ashamed of my own partisanship/' Of one thing I am certain, and 
that is that though not a prominent official of the Church, I have 
devoted much of my time and thought to the Church and its 
principles, its philosophy, divinity, history (modern and ancient), 
and spent much time and money in research for a knowledge of 

20 Memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd 2. See Sessions, “View of James 
Henry Moyle,” pp. 86-88, 1-14; Merrill, “Smoot,” pp. 130-32. 

21 Memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd 2. 


A Mormon Politician 

its divinity. And I have received a knowledge of its divinity that 1 
have proclaimed with greater enthusiasm and devotion than was 
ever exhibited by the Senator and Apostle of Christ. I trust that 1 
may (if in error) be pardoned for that unnecessary and probably 
inappropriate comparison. It is prompted by the fact that I do not 
ever recall having heard of the Senator expressing a very religious 
testimony or heard from others of their having heard one. And 
this thought continually occurs to me: Was President Joseph F. 
Smith justified in permitting himself to be reputed among his 
people to be deeply impressed with the belief that Senator Smoot 
was engaged in doing the Lord’s will in devoting himself to politics 
and so much partisan activity, rather than devoting himself more 
to his religious work? 

I want it known that I have never said that Reed was not 
engaged in doing the will and carrying out the purpose of God, 
but it has been and is my belief that no Apostle of the Church 
should be so completely devoted to partisan political leadership 
or otherwise engage in that which appears to be so much of a union 
of Church and state; that a member of the Council of the Twelve 
Apostles of die Church should not make political office the pre- 
dominating feature of his life. He should instead devote himself 
to unifying rather than dividing and antagonizing the brotherhood 
that should exist in the Church. That seems too apparent to me to 
be questioned. I cannot therefore resist the belief that Apostle 
Reed Smoot’s unfortunate unhappiness and failure in his declin- 
ing and final years will always be a wholesome and impressive 
lesson to any member of the Council of the Twelve Apostles and 
those similarly situated, because in addition to that failure and 
unhappiness, he was not loved and respected as he would have 
been had he devoted his life to his first and greatest responsibility. 
Its neglect brought its own punishment, which was certainly great 
and grievous. I hope it will be salutary and helpful to others, and 
if I am wrong, 1 will know the fact in time to correct my error— both 
in thought and action. 

It is true that the Lord moves in a mysterious way sometimes, 
and that out of Smoot’s apostolic course a good may come that is 
invisible to me, and a good sufficient to justify the injury done. In 
the face of all that and to be frank in completing my story, I am 
impelled to say that I am not sure there was not on the whole a 


Chapter 6 

divinity involved in it all that will sooner or later become more 
manifest, for Reed Smoot filled a real mission and in many respects 
it was well done. It is human to err, and we are all guilty. And I 
should be more charitable than I am. I have bitterly opposed Reed 
Smoot and I did and do believe that opposition was justified. I 
would have done much better if 1 had used the butcher’s meat ax 
less and the surgeon’s delicate knife more. My weakness was that 
I used the implements at my command, and the resources I could 
use the easiest and best. It was not clever, but it was vigorous. 22 

Finally, let me say that notwithstanding my bitter opposition to 
the election of the Senator and the Church leadership activity that 
insured his election, I believe that leadership may ultimately have 
been justified because of the influence which Smoot exercised in 
the then dominant national party and in high financial circles. But 
I do not know if the good outbalances the ill effects of thus uniting 
Church leadership with partisan politics, something that was al- 
ways offensive to my ideals and conceptions of public welfare. " ’ 

William H. King 

As to whether it would have been better for me to have been 
elected Senator or not has always been an unsolved question for 
me. I believe I took my defeats and disappointments like a man 
should and made the best of them. I wanted in the worst way to 
run in 1916 and would have done so if the party had made the call, 
but decided not to make a fight for it. But King was too bright and 
too good a politician to pass up the opportunity as I did. He 
cultivated his friendships and did not let the grass grow under his 
feet as I did. He joined with Bamberger in 1916, but I never blamed 
either for it. King deserved the prize and proved himself to be a 
brilliant speaker and a hard worker. He was also a consistent 
Democrat, except that he later fell by the wayside by being ultra- 
conservative and not loyal to Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He was 
even opposed to women’s suffrage; President Wilson, through 
McAdoo, appealed to me to corral him and keep him in line. King 

22 Memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd 2 (Item 5). See also memoran- 
dum dated Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd 2 (Item 2). 

23 Memorandum dated Oct. 1938, box 9, fd 4. See additionally on Smoot’s ca- 
reer, Thomas G. Alexander, “Reed Smoot, The L.D.S. Church and Progressive Legisla- 
tion, 1903-1933,” Dialogue, A Journal of Mormon Thought 7 (Spring 1972): 47-56. 


A Mormon Politician 

said to me that he would rather resign than vote for women’s 
suffrage. I said: “You will, like a good little man, walk up and vote 
for it or go out of public life into perpetual oblivion.” And he did, 
not on my advice but because he knew that a vote against it would 
be fatal to him. 24 

Senator King, when I was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, 
opposed our efforts in the Bureau of Public Health to have 
government surgeons aid in extending medical service in back- 
ward states like New Mexico, where they had no public health 
service at all. We almost came to blows over the subject, and 
especially over having our surgeons go into such states to examine 
school children. His conservatism grew on him until he thanked 
God publicly for our Supreme Court when it was defeating New 
Deal reforms by its edicts and annulling constitutional laws by the 
decisions of the five reactionary members of the Court. He was 
loyal to his convictions, but he thought he saw further ahead than 
the rest of us who differed with him. He finally came to his senses 
in the 1940s and said it would be a godsend for the nation to have 
Franklin D. Roosevelt for the fourth term. 

As to why I did not make a fight for the senatorship in 1916, 1 
have often wondered. It has been something of a riddle to me. My 
conclusion has been that money was a potent reason and maybe 
the chief one. At any rate, there was clearly a divinity in it all for me. 
I believe the intensity of my feelings might have led me into a vio- 
lent opposition to Church leadership in politics that might have 
been hurtful. Furthermore, I believe my family is better off. A good 
name and family are better than riches and fleeting honors. And I 
can say assuredly that my ending so far has been very satisfactory. 

Hard Experience 

If I had been set on running I would have been nominated in 
1916. I had the organization with me, having conducted two 
campaigns successfully. The third (1914), though unsuccessful, 
had lifted the party out of despondence into the sunshine of hope. 

24 Memorandum dated Mar.-Apr. 1945, Box 12, fd 2. For a look at an interest- 
ing aspect of King’s career, see Lawrence M. Hauptman, “Utah’s Anti-Imperialist: 
Senator William H. King and Haiti, 1921-1934,” Utah Historical Quarterly 41 (Spring 
1973): 16-27. 


Chapter 6 

I had practically Financed singlehandedly the campaign in 1914; I 
had many favors I would have collected in 1916 even though the 
county officers spent some for their own campaigns. But I fell that 
it would be an injustice to my family and wife especially who always 
protested against my spending so much in politics, and she did not 
know how much I spent or the protest would have been greater. 
Even so, it was not only the money. In 1914 I spent about four 
months in the campaign, most of that time away from my office. 
My financial status did not justify the outlay of time and money 
when the prospect of success was good but far from certain. So 1 
yielded in 1916 and left the way open for King. I am not so sure 
that it was not better for me and my family that I lost the honor. 
The cry that Wilson had to keep us out of war proved to be a 
winning slogan though we were in the war the following April and 
I became Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Fall. Secretary 
McAdoo, because of my campaign in 1914, I presume, and work 
done previously in the leadership of the party in Utah, selected me 
as the pivotal man of the state. He relied upon me when he was a 
candidate for the Presidency, not only in Utah but in Idaho and 
Wyoming also. McAdoo, as Senator, volunteered when I went to 
Washington in 1933 to go to bat for me anytime. He recommended 
me “without reservation” to Owen D. Young when the latter was 
in the heyday of his popularity. I have the letter now. I did not use 
that introduction; there was no favorable opportunity. But I valued 
the letter signature and held it in reserve in case I ever needed it. 
I would like to have had Owen D. Young as President and would 
have backed him to the limit. He might have been, but for his being 
head of General Electric. His political philosophy was mine and I 
admired his character and addresses. 25 

In all of this hard experience with the leaders of the Church 1 
have seen in them so much of normal human weakness that at 
times it has been something of a trial of faith, but it was always in 
connection with their human side and not the spiritual and doc- 
trinal sides which are the fundamental cornerstones of the Gospel. 
That leadership (strictly in religious matters) has always been one 
of consistent advancement. But the Church leaders have resorted 
at times to expedients and adopted policies in temporal affairs that 


25 Memorandum dated Mar.-Apr. 1945, Box 12, fd 2. 

A Mormon Politician 

have seemed to be erroneous or at least subject to fair criticism. 
When I come to recall them for deliberate analysis, however, years 
after with due cooling time, I find it difficult even to remember 
them. That is because errors made, being human, are soon forgot- 
ten. That was the case with the Prophets Joseph, Brigham, John, 
Wilford, Lorenzo, Joseph F., and now HeberJ., who as the end of 
life approaches grows in general respect and high esteem. The only 
error I cannot forget is their desire to interfere in politics, a field 
in which they seem to want to operate in spite of their declaration 
of April 1907. 2,1 Should time justify them, it would be a real case of 
divine leadership not seen by men of my kind, and there are many 
of us very active in the Church. I know more about the last two 
presidents, particularly Heber with whom I have been intimate and 
(until after the death of his counselor Ivins) in agreement politi- 
cally. Politics, and that alone, has separated me from both Presi- 
dents Smith and Grant, but as the mist dears and the sun shines 
more clearly in the life of Joseph F. Smith, I see the real man and 
his work standing out magnificently. It becomes clearer that the 
good outshines the bad (if such it may seem) which will be 
forgotten as minor error of man. As previously recorded, there 
were more complaints about Brigham Young in his later life than 
that of any of his successors. That was due to his having done more 
and entered more into the daily affairs of the people, ffe was closer 
to a greater percentage of the people. But today those complaints 
or faults seem mere mist the sunlight of truth and good has melted 
away. As to Brigham, I cannot even recall much adverse criticism 
worth mentioning. He has and will grow greater as time passes and 
so will Joseph F. Smith and HeberJ. Grant, because they piloted 
the Church onward and upward, and the minor mistakes of the 
man, like the passing mist, will fade away. 27 

26 Memorandum dated Jan. 1945, Box 12, Id 1. The First Presidency (Joseph F. 
Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund) issued what it called “An Address— The 
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to the World” in which it sought to en- 
lighten the public concerning the real nature of Mormonism. Among the assertions of 
the sixteen-page pamphlet was a vow that the church was not involved in political af- 
fairs. Appearing separately and as an appendix to the April 1907 Conference Report, 
the “Address” was sustained as an official statement of the church in conference on 
April 5, 1907. 

27 Memorandum dated Jan. 1945, Box 12, Id 1. 

Chapter 6 

Joseph F. Smith came down like Heber J. Grant from the 
pioneer period but was more or less modernized. Each was at 
home in both periods and with his surroundings. Joseph F. was 
highly spiritual and his mind was more studious than Heber’s. 
He was also very wise in the considerations of business natters, 
but he was disposed to delve more into the depths of hought 
and the underlying philosophy of doctrine and the soirees of 
spiritual life. His sermons on the hereafter and resurrecion are 
the best I have ever heard— the most realistic, instructive, and 
satisfying. I believe he lived nearer the divine and though more 
about it than Heber did. 

President Grant thought more about figures and perctntages, 
money values, business, life insurance and the insurance bisiness. 
How he came to get along so well spiritually with all ol this is 
hard to understand, for the bent of his mind like his consjicuous 
nose indicated that he was a kinsman of Israel, or at bast of 
Judah. 28 

Both men were clearly sincere, honest, devoted Later-day 
Saints ready to make any sacrifice for the Gospel. Both, ike all 
the rest, were human beings who at times exhibited humar weak- 
ness, especially when their selfish interests were involved. Truth- 
fully, sincerely, and deliberately I say that I know much ccncern- 
ing both men, especially Heber, and am perfectly satisfiel that 
finer men could not be found and that each made a contribution 
to the Church and community that time will demonstrate was 
divinely inspired. I also know that neither did anything the Lord 
will not forgive or that I should not forgive, though both did that 
which I unqualifiedly condemn in politics. And Joseph F. did 
something to me in business that I thought and still think despi- 
cable. Jl 

The Con Wagon Affair 

Early in 1914 I was beginning to contemplate the possibility 
of running for the United States Senate. At about this time 1 had 
been giving a good deal of service as counsel to the Consolidated 

28 Memorandum dated May 1944, Box 10, fd 6. See Preston Nibley, The Presi- 
dents of the Church (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1971), pp. 179-264. 

29 Memorandum dated May 1944, Box 10, fd 6. 


A Mormon Politician 

Wagon and Machine Company, of which Joseph F. Smith was 
president. Con Wagon, as it was called, handled virtually all of the 
wagon and farm implement business in Utah and Idaho, so it 
meant quite a bit to me from the standpoint of my income. When 
you hit a man at his income it is quite critical, especially when he 
has the responsibility of a growing family. George Odell was 
another high official in Con Wagon. He was not a Mormon, but 
we were close friends and I used to discuss religion with him often, 
especially about his being a Christian Scientist, which was very 
fashionable among prominent people in Salt Lake at the time, and 
Odell’s family was very prominent. His youngest daughter, for 
example, married Clarence Bamberger. I mention all of this to 
indicate the very close relationship I thought existed between me 
and influential officers in the company. Anyway, I went one time 
to a Con Wagon directors’ meeting and was informed bluntly that 
I was to be succeeded immediately by President Smith’s son-in-law, 
John F. Bowman of the firm of Stewart and Callister. It was obvious 
that there had been a prearranged deal, because a vote in favor of 
my replacement went through without any discussion. I was com- 
pletely flabbergasted, because I could see that this had been done 
outside of the meeting. So I got up on my feet and made a speech, 
and I must have been particularly inspired by the injustice, because 
it brought tears to the eyes of these men. As I recall, I went over 
my desire to get an education and my desire to get it in a way that 
would not be too hard on my family. I also mentioned how the 
choice places such as West Point were reserved for such as 
Brigham’s sons and how I had been thwarted by the Church which 
1 held so dear. I ended by saying that I was prudently disappointed 
at what had been done, and that I would suffer financially because 
of the sudden termination of my work with the company. In spite 
of this speech they held to their decision and Bowman took over, 
but within the year they asked me to return because they were 
dissatisfied with his conduct as counsel. I accepted and resumed 
my old position, but I never got over the injustice I felt President 
Smith had done to me.™ 

30 Interview with Evelyn Moyle Nelson by Gene A. Sessions, 20 June 1974, tran- 
script of twelve pages, CLA, pp. 1-3. This paragraph is Moyle’s story of the affair as re- 
membered by his elder daughter. There is very little on the details of the incident 


Chapter 6 

In my opinion, it also caused him real grief, and he tred to 
ease his mind by being very nice to me shortly before his ieath. 
But his pride, I presume, kept him from making an opei con- 
fession. He did so much good, and realizing my own weakresses 
and need for pardon I forgive his failure to make it right. I do 
not think it would be possible for me to do what he did tc me, 
but possibly I have done else for which I need charity. I am glad 
to say that I am not conscious of ever having done any htman 
being a serious injustice. My tongue has given offense, but was 
sincere. Joseph F. did not at the time realize the full graviy of 
the injustice he did to me. I am proud of the fact that the injustice 
was soon corrected by others. No one ever attached blame to me 
concerning the matter. 11 

While I was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury and visiting 
in Salt Lake only a week or possibly two before President Smith’s 
death, Apostle George Albert Smith met me on the street and 
said, “President Smith is a very sick man, and I am sure he would 
like to see you.” So we went immediately to him. He was on a 
large sofa or bed bolstered up with pillows. He expressed his 
pleasure at seeing me, and said among other things, “I prophe- 
sied fifty years ago that our boys would become influential men 
in our government and you and Reed Smoot are fulfilling that 
prophecy.” He said nothing about it, but I believe he had in mind 
during the interview the conflict we had in that 1914 meeting of 
the board of directors of the Consolidated Wagon and Machine 
Company. To my surprise, and that of George Albert and Presi- 
dent Smith’s son, George, who was there when we arrived, he 
asked me to be mouth in administering to him. George Albert 
said he did not remember of his asking such a favor of anyone 
excepting his counselors, the apostles, and those very close to 
him. 12 

The Liquor Deal 

One experience with President Smith in politics that rankled 

among the memoranda in the Moyle Collection, but the fragments would support Eve- 
lyn Nelson’s version. 

31 Memorandum dated May 1944, Box 10, fd 6. 

32 Memorandum dated Dec. 1934, Box 9, fd 3. 


A Mormon Politician 

me was the so-called liquor deal. On February 24, 1909, at the Salt 
Lake Theater, a Republican prohibition convention met and was 
largely attended. That convention charged that there had been an 
infamous and immoral political deal made with the saloon and 
liquor men to prevent statewide prohibition. It urged that the 
legislature (only two members of which were Democrats) not keep 
this “covenant with hell.” The House subsequently passed the 
Cannon prohibition bill, but it was held up in the Senate by federal 
officeholders, notwithstanding the fact that more than 80,000 
persons had petitioned the legislature for its passage. Joseph J. 
Cannon, the bill’s sponsor, charged that a deal had been made 
before the legislature was elected to defeat any prohibition meas- 
ure. Such men as Bishop Charles Nibley, Nephi L. Morris, and 
Apostle Hyrum Smith asserted that 90 percent of the people 
demanded prohibition, the women wanted it, the Church wanted 
it, and so on, and that only the Federal Bunch was preventing the 
enactment of the law. 

Among the fifty men and women who called this prohibition 
convention and participated in it were such Republicans as Nibley, 
Morris, Smith, David O. McKay, David A. Smith, and Mrs. Emme- 
line B. Wells. Some time before, the Salt Lake Republican, the 
official organ of the Republican Party, had commenced an agita- 
tion for prohibition, but suddenly quit. Then the Salt Lake Herald 
was quickly purchased and merged with the Republican. There can 
be little doubt that this deal was financed with money secured from 
the liquor interests. This constituted the main reason for the 
charge of a Republican liquor deal which the convention so 
vigorously and violently denounced. " 

Joseph F. Smith had no use for the Democrats, and was as 
partisan in my opinion as I was, only he did not talk politics publicly 
on many occasions. But no one interested had any trouble in 
finding it out. Even his ardent devotion to prohibition did not 
prevent him on this occasion from standing by in silence, or going 
to Hawaii, to avoid the issue, rather than denouncing the Federal 
Bunch for their selling the protection of the law to the liquor 

33 Undated memorandum. Box 8, fd 2. See Larry E. Nelson, “Utah Goes Dry,” 
Utah Historical Quarterly 41 (Autumn 1973): 240-57. See Malmquist, First 100 Years, p. 


Chapter 6 

interests for the thirty or forty thousand dollars that bought the 
Salt Lake Herald, the long-time organ of Democracy. That story 
should be told more fully. 11 

Any form of militant union of church and state can only 
injure both until the Redeemer of mankind comes to rule in 
righteousness and selfishness is eliminated. There is no doubt in 
my mind from the facts with which I was fully familiar that Joseph 
F. Smith, one of the finest and best of men, and so strongly 
inspired of God in so many ways concerning the vital interests 
of the Church, lowered his standard of righteousness and 
strained his conscience when he went to Hawaii to get away from 
the burning prohibition issue to which he was as devoted as any 
man. He left Utah to avoid having to deal with a message to 
Senator Smoot from his son. Apostle Hyrum Smith, President 
Bishop Nibley, and Stake President Morris, the committee ap- 
pointed by the mass convention of Republicans protesting against 
the liquor deal. The Smoot leaders in the state were clearly 
throttling the legislature which was trying to pass a prohibition 
law. Senator Smoot sent his reply not to the committee but to 
President Smith and asked him to call off these prominent 
Church officials. That was an extraordinary and inexcusable ac- 
tion that smacked of using Church leadership to control high 
officials in politics. It is also true that the three men were not 
acting as Church officials but as Republicans. Morris soon after 
became a prominent Republican candidate for governor. Never- 
theless, they were prominent in the Church. They were three 
shining lights in the Church and community. 

Apparently, the liquor interests had previously turned over 
to the United States Attorney, a Smoot appointee, some $30,000 
in cash for the purchase of the formerly Democratic Salt Lake 
Herald, which was then comparable with the Tribune (Republican) 
and the Deseret News (“neutral”). This was done to deprive the 
Democratic Party of a newspaper organ. Additionally, the Herald 
had been fighting for prohibition, so the liquor deal effectively 
killed two birds with one stone and served both the liquor inter- 
ests and the Smoothes. It silenced at once a pro-prohibition and 
anti-Sinoot newspaper. There was no excuse for the blessing of 


34 Memorandum dated Nov. 1944, Box 1, fd 3. 

A Mormon Politician 

Joseph F. Smith upon the Federal Bunch when they thus sold 
the state government to the liquor interest for its support and a 
small mess of pottage to enable the dominant political party of 
the state to buy a local daily newspaper for purely partisan ad- 
vantage. He blessed the perfidy by remaining silent. ’’ 

The underhanded attempts on the part of Smoot and the 
Federal Bunch to gain and use the support of the wet forces in the 
state went on and affected my campaign against the Apostle- 
Senator in 1914. In this connection, the anti-Smoot forces printed 
a humorous series called “The Book of Smoot,” an excerpt of 
which follows: 

1 . And it came to pass that during the reign of the great king 
Reed the Smoot, that it became necessary to put another one 

2. And he called together the Scribes and Pharisees and the pussy 
footers and the conjurers and the sorcerers and a great com- 
pany of those that seek for office, and the whisperers and the 

3. And he said unto them: Verily have ye seen the wickedness of 
William the Spry towards the Prohibites who do murmur 
against him; for that which he hath done is not seemly. 

4. For albeit, the great king was wroth because of the praises 
which the Mammonites, who were at war with the Prohibites, 
did sound of William the Spry, even with sounding brass and 
tinkling cymbals and the lyre and the psaltery. 

5. And the king in his heart conjured against William the Spry, 
how he might destroy him, lest he finally usurp the kingdom. 

6. For he knew that the Prohibites hated William the Spry for that 
which he had refused to do, to dry up all the land of Utah and 
to consume the wicked with thirst. 

7. And straightway he called from among the Prohibites the chief 
centurions thereof and said unto them: “Ye know this wicked 
thing which William the Spry hath clone. Therefore, whom 
shall I deliver unto You?” 

8. And they cried with a loud voice saying: “William the Spry, 
deliver him unto us.” 

9. And the great king said unto them: “Be it even so.” 

10. And straightway the clackers began to clack and the quackers 
began to quack and the whisperers began to whisper and the 

35 Memorandum dated Sept. 1944, Box 1, fd 1. 


Chapter 6 

whackers began to whack. Then the swatters swatted him with 
the king’s swatter both upon the ankle and on the wrist and 
marked upon him the figure of a goat; and they compassed 
him round about and smote him with the jawbone of a hinny, 
until he was a dead one. 

1 1 . This was in the days of King Reed, the Smoot. h 

Clean Skirts in a Muddy Street 

In conclusion, Joseph F. Smith, throughout his long presi- 
dency of the Church, was persistently represented by the under- 
ground, rubber-shoed Mormon Republican Party leaders as want- 
ing the Republicans to win, and they encouraged the campaign 
of underlings in circulating the thought that it was the will of 
the Lord that they should win or that Utah should be Republican. 
It was that un-American campaign carried on without any serious 
objection from the President of the Church, together with the 
popularity of the Republican protective tariff, that transferred 
political control of Utah from the Democratic to the Republican 
Party, even as Cleveland was giving Utah statehood in 1895. The 
defeat of the Republicans in 1896 was chiefly due to the popu- 
larity of free silver advocated by the Democrats under the lead- 
ership of William J. Bryan. When that subsided and the Silver 
Republicans returned to their party, and with the failure of the 
Democrats to elect a United States Senator in 1898 when the 
legislature was overwhelmingly Democratic, the Republicans 
again were triumphant in Utah to the extent that the Democrats 
in 1908 did not win a county in the state, and elected no member 
of the state senate and but two in the lower house and they barely 
got there. Many even wanted to disband as a party as a protest 
against ecclesiastical leadership in politics. Such was the transfor- 
mation of Utah from the Democratic side to the Republican side 
at the very time that Utah was given statehood by the Democrats. 37 

I am yet proud of my own conduct through all of this. When 

36 Undated print. Box 7, fd 6. This is chapter two of the series called “The Book 
of Smoot,” which ran in The Progressive (Salt Lake City) beginning 10 October 1914. 

The Utah Progressives in 1914 endorsed the Democratic ticket in place of running 
their own. 

37 Memorandum dated Dec. 1944, Box 1, fd 4. See also memorandum dated 
Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd 2. 

A Mormon Politician 

I conducted the Democratic state campaign in 1898, McCune, 
the multimillionaire candidate for the Senate, with whom I was 
very friendly, insisted on my using his money freely to insure the 
success of the campaign, and thereby have me obligated to him. 
I answered that all I asked from the party was $7,500 and the 
direction of the political policy of the Salt Lake Herald in con- 
junction with Noble Warrum, its editor. I insisted that 1 would 
not spend more money than that sum. I determined that I would 
not be a party to selling a Senatorship for money or using it to 
secure votes, except in a perfectly legitimate and appropriate way. 
My skirts were to be kept clean. “ 

McCune offered again in 1916 to pay all the expenses of the 
campaign if I would run with him, I for governor and he for the 
Senate. That I could not do and be fair with Bamberger. Besides, 
McCune had done nothing in 1914, being active only when he 
wanted something. I said to him: “If I run it will be at my own 
expense.” And I declined the offer. He had put up no money in 
1914 and did no work at all. It was the showing I made in 1914 
anyway that inspired him. He, too, had believed it impossible to 
win and dropped out after setting the parly back. He and I had 
always been friends, and there had been no break between us, 
though he had prevented me from being Senator in 1898 by not 
releasing those pledged to support him. He was as cold-blooded 
about it all as the gambler he was. Though always a Democrat, 
he quit completely when he found he had no chance for his 
selfish satisfaction. He had so much money he did not need to 
count it. And he never after was helpful to the party notwith- 
standing his millions and promises that if he were not elected he 
would finance the Salt Lake Herald as a Democratic paper and 
build for it a fine plant on Main Street. That was his answer to 
me as state chairman when I charged him with wrecking the 

All that was in harmony with the course I had mapped out for 
my life, a determination to win my own self-respect and thereby 
that of others. That is today my greatest political satisfaction, a 
satisfaction that lasts. The usual conduct of a candidate would be 

38 Memorandum dated Sept.-Oct. 1943, Box 10, fd 3. 

39 Memorandum dated Mar. -Apr. 1945, Box 12, fd 2. 

Chapter 6 

by some compromise or other action to pacify the opposition, but 
my reply was to the effect that I would be damned before I would 
do it. 1 " 

In 1914 a few sheepmen voted for me, because Smoot and 
Republican leaders had predicted that the election of Wilson in 
1912 would mean the destruction of their business, so in view of 
that and the Underwood Bill they sold their wool in 1913 on that 
theory at ruinous prices. I went to Washington in 1913 to protest 
against President Wilson’s policy of placing a substantial high 
tariff on manufactured products of the East while leaving the 
products of the farms, ranges, and mines of the West unpro- 
tected. It clearly was undemocratic, and unfair. But that was the 
policy of Cleveland also. I was so Democratic, however, that my 
interest in livestock did not change my politics as it did others 
with rare exceptions. I always stood squarely with the party be- 
cause of devotion to Democratic principles generally. I did so 
even when the party was long in the minority, and its prospects 
for success not assuring. I never had much use for fair-weather 
partisans in either party, and I can claim without reservation that 
I have stuck by my party and my principles. 41 

As to national politics during this period, I attended the 
conventions in Kansas City and Denver where Bryan was nomi- 
nated in 1900 and 1908. I would have been elected national 
committeeman and attended the convention in Baltimore in 1112 
and witnessed the nomination of the great Woodrow Wilson, aut 
I took a trip to Europe to meet my oldest son, Henry, who vas 
completing his three-year mission. I wanted so badly to see lint 
there and return with him. I had in early spring, however, at- 
tended the Baltimore dinner of the Democratic National Com- 
mittee in preparation for the 1912 convention. Additionally I 
met and talked with Wilson at the Raleigh Hotel some time laer. 

I was there as chairman of the state committee. In 1904, when 
Judge Alton Parker was nominated, I stayed home minding ny 

40 Memorandum dated Sept. -Oct. 1943, Box 1, fd 2. 

41 Memorandum dated Aug. 1945, Box 12, fd 4. In a move to moderate protc- 
tionism, the Underwood Tariff of 1913 lowered duties to an average of about 30 pi- 
cent in contrast to the turn-of-the-century highs of nearly 60 percent. To the chagri 
of westerners like Moyle, however, it placed iron, steel, wool, and sugar on the free 


A Mormon Politician 

fences in the gubernatorial race. As national committeeman in 
1916, I attended the convention which nominated Wilson the 
second time, and shortly thereafter I became a member of his 
administration. 42 

42 Memorandum dated Feb.-Apr. 1944, Box 10, fd 6. See additionally for the pe- 
riod of this chapter the following: Nelson Interview, CLA, pp. 7-9; interview with Sara 
Moyle Creer by Gene A. Sessions, 3 July 1974, transcript of nineteen pages, CLA, pp. 
1-6; interview with James D. Moyle by Gene A. Sessions, 11 Aug. 1974, transcript of 
eighteen pages, CLA, pp. 1-7; Journal History of the Church, CLA, 18 Nov. 1910, p. 2; 
undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 6; memorandum dated Mar. 1932, Box 9, fd 3; 
memorandum dated Mar. 1943, Box 9, fd 7; memorandum dated May 1943, Box 10, 
fd 1; memorandum dated May 1944, Box 10, fd 6; memorandum dated Aug. 1943, 

Box 8, fd 3; memorandum dated Aug. 1945, Box 12, fd 4; Shipps, “Utah Comes of 
Age,” 91-101; Noble Warrum, ed., Utah Since Statehood: Historical and Biographical, 4 
vols. (Salt Lake City: S.J. Clarke, 1919), 1:121-93. 

Chapter 7 



Call to Serve 

During World War I, I was appointed by President Woodrow 
Wilson to be a member of the Coinage Commission of the United 
States, on which I served early in 1917, going to the Philadelphia 
Mint to do so. William G. McAdoo, then Secretary of the Treasury, 
telegraphed me while I was at the Mint in Philadelphia to come to 
Washington. In a long interview with me, Secretary McAdoo said: 
“I want to do something for you, Moyle.” I replied that I would not 
accept anything the administration might give to a Utahn. Up to 
that time, nothing of national importance had been given to a 
native Utahn, and especially a Mormon. I then returned home, and 
in August, Senator King telegraphed that McAdoo wanted me to 
become his assistant in the Treasury Department. I was reluctant 
to give up my business and home, although anxious to be of some 
real public service during the Great War. While I hesitated, Sena- 
tor Salisbury of Delaware, who was president pro tern of the 
Senate, and with whom I was acquainted, telegraphed and said that 
my friends wanted me to come to Washington. This was followed 
by a telegram from McAdoo himself urging that I accept the 
appointment, but I still hesitated. Later, even President Wilson 


Chapter 7 

telegraphed urging me to accept the appointment, which finally I 
did. 1 

While I appreciated keenly the distinct honor conferred upon 
me and upon the State of Utah, it was no easy matter to arrive at 
a decision under the existing circumstances. The magnitude of the 
honor conferred was still more deeply impressed upon me by 
prominent Republicans and Democrats alike, all of whom were 
unanimous in the opinion that I should accept. Under such 
conditions I felt that I would have been derelict in my duty to have 
declined the appointment. The unanimity of opinion among lead- 
ing Republicans and Democrats was exceedingly gratifying. 2 3 The 
Tribune editorial on my appointment pleased me very much: 

The honor conferred upon Mr. Moyle by the proffer of an 
executive position in the national administration is unique insofar as 
Utah is concerned. In no other instance has a Utah man or a member 
of the Mormon Church been tendered an executive position in the 
national administration. 1 

Prior to my departure for Washington, several of the leading 
citizens of the state gave a testimonial dinner for me at the Hotel 
Utah. I was very pleased with the complimentary remarks, but 
especially did 1 appreciate former Senator Tom Kearns who said, 
referring to my fighting qualities: “He never struck below the belt 
and you always know where he stands.” 4 

In the Treasury 

The room I occupied in the Treasury Building was next east 
to that of the Secretary, and faced south with one window facing 
east that looked up Pennsylvania Avenue, giving me a clear view 

1 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 1; James Henry Moyle Collection, Library- 
Archives, Historical Department, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt 
Lake City, hereinafter cited as CLA. All references hereinafter to box and folder (fd) 
are for items from this collection. 

-'Sal! Lake Tribune , 22 Sept. 1917. 

3 Salt Lake Tribune, 20 Sept. 1917. This statement from the Tribune was con- 
tained in the article announcing that Moyle had been offered the position and not as 
an editorial per se. 

4 Undated memorandum, Box 1, fd 12. O. N. Malmquist, The First 100 Years: A 
History of the Salt Lake Tribune, 1871-1971 (Salt Lake City: Utah State Historical Soci- 
ety, 1971), p. 264, quotes Kearns as follows: “Everybody knows where you stand on 
any question, and you never hit below the belt.” 


Assistant Secretary from Utah 

of the Capitol from where I sat. I thought it was the nicest office 
in the building. The Secretary occupied the southwest corner, 
which gave him needed adjoining rooms. His entrance room was 
larger than mine, but his office was not. The fiscal assistant 
occupied the southeast corner room, but his view was not as good 
as mine. He could not, for example, see the Capitol. I had three 
dignified blacks as messengers who carried paper to and from my 
office to the divisions under me. They had nothing else to do. One 
of them, the oldest, we called Uncle Jacob. He spent most of his 
time admitting people to the office and waiting on me. He insisted 
on standing at attention when I entered and left, and took off my 
coat and hat, dusted me off, and so on. The third assistant 
occupied an inner room with a window on an inner court. Mine 
was one of the most dignified offices in Washington, and we 
transacted an immense amount of business there. Every day there, 
bureau chiefs explained the most important problems. Events 
were always exciting.’ 

Soon after I entered the Treasury Department, President 
Wilson designated and authorized me to act as the acting secretary 
of the treasury in the absence of the Secretary. The rule in the 
Treasury Department then was that when the Secretary was unable 
to attend to business, even though in his office, the acting secretary 
should attend to the business; and in that capacity I was frequently 
called into service, inasmuch as the work of the Treasury Depart- 
ment was greater than it had ever been before in the history of the 
nation. At the beginning of the Harding Administration, the office 
of undersecretary was created to perform the same and other 
services.' 1 

Reforming the Currency 

While I was in the Treasury Department, my duties did not in- 
clude that of the fiscal affairs of the government. That occupied the 
entire attention of another assistant secretary who was over- 
whelmed with the work of that branch of the Treasury, including 
that of floating liberty bonds. But he was so busy with it that Mr. 
McAdoo asked me if I would not relieve him of the supervision of 

5 Memorandum dated Oct. 1944, Box 1, fd 2. 

6 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 1. 


Chapter 7 

the Bureau of Printing and Engraving with its 9,500 employees, 
which was giving him trouble because the chief of the bureau was 
mixed up in a moral scandal. I quickly solved that problem by the 
appointment of a new chief, a man of excellent character and abil- 

Taking charge of the Bureau of Printing and Engraving, I 
sought with great difficulty to have the Army release some of their 
engravers to us to relieve our shortage, but some of them were 
well-placed there and objected to being taken from the Army. We 
finally got some lower-skilled engravers and managed with diffi- 
culty and at times embarrassment to get along and supply the 
needed money. It was this need for more engravers, and the 
crowded condition of the storage room in which the plates were 
kept, that led me to investigate the whole subject of issuing 
national bank notes. My first real information and encouragement 
to do away with the national bank notes came from a Mr. Herndon, 
a Virginian who had charge of the vault rooms in which the notes 
were stored in the lowest floor of the basement of the Treasury 
Building. He was delighted when I called on him and asked for 
information concerning his duties and activities in connection 
with the matter. He said he had advocated for years doing away 
with the national bank notes, but never was able to get the ear of 
a Treasury official. From that hour, I was ceaseless in my search 
for justification for doing that very thing. I had several interviews 
with Herndon, and a Mr. Thompson in the office of the fiscal 
assistant secretary, and with a Mr. Broughton, then in charge of 
Loans and Currency, a branch of the fiscal assistant secretary’s 
office that had charge of handling all the paper money of the 
government. Thompson and Broughton offered no encourage- 
ment, though they offered no objections either and apparently 
could assign none, except that it would disturb the existing paper 
money set up, which was working satisfactorily except for the 
difficulty of keeping up the plates during the exigencies of war. 

Next to the need for engravers was that of steel-plate printers 
and machines (with storage space for them) to do the printing of 
the various notes constituting the currency of the government. I 
found some thirteen hundred hand presses in use, which occupied 
much needed space in the bureau. Yet we were far behind in 
202 printing the notes. I immediately impressed this fact upon Secre- 

Assistant Secretary from Utah 

tary McAdoo and he authorized me to substitute (as I recom- 
mended) hoe presses, and to place at once an order for 200 to start 
with. But this caused labor union trouble, because the hoe presses 
would do four times the work of the hand presses with the same 
labor. Frank Morrison, secretary of the American Federation of 
Labor, finally cooperated with me and that threatened trouble was 
averted. The manufacturers had never had such an order. Then it 
took time to substitute them for all the hand presses. And the 
union insisted among other things that the new machines should 
only be used during the war. I agreed but ordered the chief of the 
bureau to put the discarded hand presses where the plate printers 
could not find them after the war. 

As soon as I satisfied myself that the national bank notes 
should be abolished, based on information obtainable in the 
Treasury, I went across the street from the Treasuiy to President 
White (he was the nearest) of the Federal National Bank of 
Washington to learn what objections the bankers would have to 
the change, and to my surprise and delight he said he believed it 
would be a good thing, despite the fact that it would take from his 
bank and other banks in Washington desirable business in han- 
dling for outside banks their notes— that is acting as agent for them 
in receiving and forwarding new notes and returning dirty and 
damaged notes to be exchanged for new notes. There seeming to 
be no more hurdles to clear, I took the matter up with the president 
of the American Bankers Association. He was so pleased that he 
came to Washington at once and we perfected plans to submit it 
first to the attorneys of the association, and (if they approved) then 
to the members of the executive committee that consisted of one 
from each state. 

The attorneys cleared it and only two or three of the commit- 
tee objected. I believed their objections were chiefly due to the 
pride presidents and cashiers of national banks had in seeing their 
names signed on so much of the nation’s money. Why more banks 
did not object to abolishing the notes for this reason and also 
simple economics is difficult to understand. The banks, by placing 
certain 2 percent bonds in the Treasury as security, could issue 98 
percent of the amount of the bonds in national bank notes. Thus 
they received 2 percent interest on the bonds— that is, on 98 
percent of the bonds, and could loan the 98 percent greenbacks 


Chapter 7 

at the going rate of interest— then 6 percent and up. The embar- 
rassment caused by the multitude of national bank notes was due 
to the fact that each national bank (and there were then eight 
thousand of them) had a plate for one-dollar, five-dollar, ten-dollar, 
and twenty-dollar notes and very many of them also had two, fifty, 
one hundred, five hundred, and some one thousand, five thou- 
sand, and ten thousand-dollar notes. The great multiplication of 
effort was therefore manifest. 

With the president of the bankers’ association enthusiastic for 
the change, I took the matter up with Secretary McAdoo, thinking 
he would, of course, be for it. But I had not considered the problem 
of assuming responsibility for such an important revolutionary 
change in our monetary system that meant tampering with the 
currency of the country; this was a delicate as well as important 
matter. Mr. McAdoo was then not only floating liberty loans and 
war savings bonds, to say nothing of the duties generally of 
Secretary of the Treasury, but he was also in charge of directing 
all of the affairs of the railroads of the United States and therefore 
could not give the subject the attention it required. 

Mr. McAdoo never reached the subject for the reasons as- 
signed. He resigned, and Carter Glass, then chairman of the 
Banking Committee in the House of Representatives, was ap- 
pointed to succeed him. I promptly renewed my recommendation 
to abolish the national bank notes and to reduce the size of the 
notes to that of the paper money of the Philippines. He was not 
favorably impressed, and in fact never discussed the subject with 
me to any extent, though he has always seemed to respect me. In 
fact he has been especially complimentary in recent years. His only 
comment when I presented in person my recommendation was, 
“I haven’t time to consider it.” 

We first met in the reception room in the Secretary's office. 
As chairman of the Banking Committee he was waiting to see the 
Secretary. I sat down beside him at once, and in my enthusiasm 
bombarded him with my big issue to which he listened long 
enough to get my views. His only reply was characteristic of 
him— brief, emphatic, and snappy. Without any apology he merely 
said, “If you are right somebody should go to the penitentiary.” 
Somewhat crestfallen, I got away as soon as I could. It took all his 
time (about one year as Secretary) to get familiar with the impera- 


Assistant Secretary from Utah 

tive and exhausting duties of his office. Though very able, he was 
not an exceptional executive; at least he was not at home in that 
work. Then Senator Martin of Virginia died, and the governor 
offered Glass a seat in the Senate, which he accepted. There he 
was at home and in the field in which he was a master, and stood 
as he still does in its first ranks. 

D. F. Houston, then Secretary of Agriculture, was appointed 
to succeed Glass. Only six months of President Wilson’s term 
remained, so he also never reached the subject I urged so strongly. 

Secretary Andrew W. Mellon, who came in with the Harding 
administration, was a very quiet, cautious business executive who 
rarely made a mistake for want of caution or conservatism. He was 
a multimillionaire of the first bracket. My branches of the service 
were new to him, for he had never spent much time in Washington. 

Mr. Mellon had forced on him assistants who led him into 
some considerable trouble, especially the assistant in charge of 
engraving. But I had everything in fine order and gave him no 
trouble. He never failed to approve any of my recommendations 
except one— abolishing the national bank notes and reducing the 
size of the paper currency. Notwithstanding his apparent confi- 
dence in me, he did not act on the recommendation for some time 
after I left. 

For about seven years he appointed various experts and com- 
missions to examine and report their findings on the subject, and 
on the sixteenth day of March, 1928, he recommended without 
any variation from my recommendations exactly what I had rec- 
ommended to the four secretaries. The time passed had resulted 
in a loss to the government and banks of many millions of dollars 
that would have been saved if my recommendations had been 
followed. Maybe it suggests the verity of “a fool rushing in where 
angels fear to tread,” but 1 am very proud of my part, and it secured 
for me a respect in Treasury circles that justifies that pride. 

Responsible for the Public Health 

The Treasury has always been the business branch of the 
Government, the department into which new government activi- 
ties were habitually placed. As I recall, in fact, the Departments of 
Agriculture, Interior, Commerce, and Labor were started by en- 
larging activities originally carried on by the Treasury Department. 


Chapter 7 

I was surprised when made assistant secretary and put in charge 
of public health organizations in the world. Its laboratories were 
a revelation to me and notable among my first surprises there were 
the number of old horses and animals of various kinds and the 
great number of mice, rats, and rabbits that were used in their 
search for health truths. 

The individual that interested me most was a heavily bearded 
man. (This was in 1917 when beards were a common though disap- 
pearing sight.) He had a massive head of black hair and was an in- 
telligent, cloistered, and silent man who was earnestly intent (in- 
deed absorbed) with looking at a house fly through an ample sup- 
ply of magnifying implements I was told had occupied the man’s 
sole attention for six weeks. He was the only man I approached but 
did not disturb who failed to pay any attention to my presence. He 
was looking as if he was on the trail of something extremely inter- 
esting and so important that he was lost to all else. He appeared as 
if he could easily and naturally be a hermit in search only of some 
great truth, in this case of some cavity or spot on a fly’s body that 
could harbor or carry a disease germ to some unfortunate mortal. 

The most important and interesting individual that service 
brought into my life was General William C. Gorgas, a public 
health surgeon who had conquered the yellow fever on the Panama 
Canal and made a disease-stricken, malarial country a healthy place 
for man to live in. His sphere was that of savior to thousands of 
human lives— a complete reversal of the accomplishments of a 
general in the army as we generally recognize the meaning of the 
word. General Gorgas was small rather than large, a normal 
though extremely interesting character. He and his wife became 
quite intimate friends of Mrs. Moyle and me. We greatly admired 
him, and his wife was socially very pleasant. The general was 
getting to be an old man in appearance and action. He loved to 
dance, though his movements were slow and deliberate. 

Early in World War I Congress passed a law creating the 
Inter-Departmental Social Hygiene Board, and placed it in charge 
of the Secretaries of the Treasury, War, and Navy. Its function was 
to provide for the personal welfare, health, and morals of the 
enlisted men before they were sent abroad or actively used in the 
Army. Mr. McAdoo was so occupied with the financing of the war, 
206 Liberty Loans, and War Savings Stamps Campaign, and the duties 

Assistant Secretary from Utah 

generally of his office to which had been added the control and 
direction of all the railroads in the United States, that he was 
unable to give any attention whatever to this new responsibility. 
The United States Public Health Service being under my direction, 
Mr. McAdoo turned over to me all of his duties with regard to the 
Hygiene Board, notwithstanding the fact that he was named the 
first of the three officers to be in charge of that activity. 7 

With Health Service surgeons, I made quite a study of the 
measure and the work to be done and I had the interesting experi- 
ence of suggesting to Newton Baker, Secretary of War, and 
Josephus Daniels, Secretary of the Navy Just what should be done- 
in other words, suggesting the motions that should be made, and 
so on, and because of my familiarity with Public Health became 
successful and active in the capacity of Mr. McAdoo’s substitute. 

A Mr. Story, a college president, was put in charge as the active 
administrator of that service, and a Dr. Pierce, one of the surgeons 
of the United States Public Health, was in charge of the Venereal 
Division. His activities were extensive and the protection that was 
thrown around the young men inducted into the Army and the 
various Army camps in the United States was a very great service. 
There was extensive literature circulated, rules adopted, and the 
morals and health of the inductees were greatly benefited there- 

Baker and Daniels were both men with strong moral and 
religious convictions and took a deep interest in that work, meet- 
ing frequently and regularly and always attending the meetings 
of the commission if possible. I enjoyed my contact with those 
two splendid Christian gentlemen. 8 9 10 In 1924, 1 attended with 
Baker the Protestant, Catholic, and Hebrew Conference in Wash- 
ington which was purely religious. I explained to Baker why I 
was for McAdoo for President. We had quite a chat. 7 Baker, by 
the way, distinguished himself as the Secretary of War and was 
seriously talked of as a Presidential candidate, and would have 
been an active candidate for the nomination."’ It was his health— 

7 Memorandum dated Apr. 1943, Box 9, fd 7. 

8 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 6. 

9 Memorandum dated Oct. 1944, Box 1, fd 2. 

10 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 6. 

Chapter 7 

his heart I think— that kept him back. Additionally, he was from 
Ohio, a popular state for Presidents." 

The Church in Washington 

When I first visited Washington in 1889 and for years after, a 
live Mormon was an object of real and rare curiosity. Generally, 
though, we did have a delegate to Congress with a secretary in the 
city. But other than that I doubt that there was another member 
of the Church located in the city. I visited Washington more or 
less frequently later, and when I lived there for four years during 
the first great war, 1917-21, there was no organized branch of the 
Church there. Senator Smoot had been extremely active and 
successful in securing employment there for Utahns, and so reli- 
gious services were held in Senator Smoot’s house; thirty or forty 
or maybe more attended. As I remember they met twice a month 
but no meetings were held during the summer. There being no 
Sunday School and having a large family, we had one informally 
at home for my children. The lovely daughter of a non-Mormon 
neighbor attended our little Sunday School occasionally, and my 
children paid a great deal of attention to her when she was there. 
She eventually married Smoot’s son, Ernest. Dr. Edgar Brossard, 
who became one of the first presidents of the Washington Branch 
when it was finally organized, told me that she said that I had given 
her the clearest conception of Mormonism, or something to that 
effect. I appreciated greatly that statement. 12 She died a few years 
ago, but did not join the Church. Her husband, like his brothers, 
was not a Church-goer or recognized as an active member of the 
Church. I think that is true of the son in Provo, unless he has 
changed of late. It is distinctly so of the other two. Before I left 
Washington for good 1 saw the youngest son, Ernest, at church 
once or twice when I attended regularly the small branch at Chevy 
Chase. He then said to me that he had recently had his son baptized 
and that he was attending church. 11 

To present something of the state of public sentiment in 

11 Memorandum dated Oct. 1944, Box 1, fd 2. 

12 Memorandum dated Sept.-Oct. 1942, Box 9, fd 6. See also memorandum 

dated Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd 2. 

13 Memorandum dated Sept.-Oct. 1943, Box 10, fd 3. 


Assistant Secretary from Utah 

Washington in 1918, I was surprised to learn that Senator Smoot 
did not favor my effort to have a branch of the Church organized 
at Washington, because of public feeling toward the Mormons— 
the danger of arousing the then latent forces of Christian bigotry 
and hatred that were then cooled down to inaction from the 
ferocity they had exhibited not so long before against the Senator 
and our people. I presume that it was his policy to “let well enough 
alone,” but I fancied at the time that he felt that if anything of the 
kind was done, only he should initiate it, being one of the Twelve. 
That did not matter to me. I was indifferent to all that and very 
prejudiced against any apostle being the leader of a partisan 
political party. I was rather openly pro-Mormon in that respect, 
which made me all the more anxious to do the job myself. 

I persisted in my efforts to have a branch organized, but 
President Walter P. Monson, of the Eastern States Mission, fol- 
lowed Senator Smoot implicitly. He only needed to know his 
wishes to follow them. He was quite the opposite of his brother 
Joe, a Democratic leader of Cache Valley, who was quite as 
independent and Democratic as I was. I discussed the matter with 
Apostle Heber J. Grant, with whom I was on the most intimate 
and friendly relations, but got nowhere. Apostles do not trespass 
upon the preserves of fellow apostles. I found they showed great 
deference to their fellow officers and especially to the First Presi- 
dency. Unity was their watchword. I was greatly surprised later 
when president of the Eastern States Mission myself to find all 
of the letters received from the President of the Church also 
signed by both counselors if present. That, I understand, contin- 
ued to be the rule until the present administration. President J. 
Reuben Clark, I understand, is credited with being responsible 
for that change of policy. It seems practical, but the old rule did 
promote the idea of unity. 14 When President Grant came to 
Washington, I took the matter up with him again and urged still 
more strongly, but I received the same answer— that it was con- 
trary to the policy of the Church not to respect greatly the advice 
of an apostle in matters affecting the welfare of the Church in 
which he was more familiar and interested than any other of the 

14 Memorandum dated Sept.-Oct. 1942, Box 9, fd 6. 

Chapter 7 

general authorities. This again seemed to be final and dependent 
on the Senator. 15 

I waited somewhat impatiently. “All things come to him who 
waits.” Then George W. McCune of Ogden (now in Los Angeles) 
became president of the mission. He was an ardent Democrat 
sympathizing with my ideas of both religion and politics who 
consulted Senator Smoot no more than he had to, if at all, on the 
subject."’ I took the matter up with him on his first visit and he was 
most favorable and worked the problem out satisfactorily to all so 
far as I know. Just how Senator Smoot felt I do not know, except 
that he yielded gracefully to the inevitable. The need for it was 
clear as it had always been. 17 

The branch was soon organized and a Sunday School followed, 
with an attendance (as I remember) of about a hundred or more. 
We had a delightful time together meeting in the Masonic rooms 
on the street between Connecticut Avenue and Eighteenth or 
Nineteenth Streets. Then followed the ordinations and organiza- 
tions of the Priesthood, which so far as 1 know was completely 
dormant before, except that the Sacrament was administered. 

An Apostle in the Senate 

The attendance at the meetings was doubled and I think soon 
tripled. Not a few had refused to go to the Smoot residence for 
any purpose unless it was death, and I do not remember a death 
being honored there or elsewhere in Washington. Senator King 
said he would not go there and did not when I was there. Solely 
from a sense of religious duly, 1 did go and Senator Smoot was 
gentlemanly if not brotherly, but not congenial or cordial. His wife, 
a schoolmate of my wife and social intimate before marriage, in 
fact so intimate that they were accustomed to sleep together in 
their respective homes, was absolutely freezing, not even so good 
as chilly to both of us. His forced cordiality was absolutely unchris- 
tian. My wife and I were both ignored in church so far as possible. 
We never received even a friendly greeting, but a good Smoot 
Republican, preceding or following us, was gushingly received. 


15 Memorandum dated Sept.-Oct. 1943, Box 10, fd 3. 

16 Memorandum dated Sept.-Oct. 1942, Box 9, fd 6. 

17 Memorandum dated Sept.-Oct. 1943, Box 10, fd 3. 

Assistant Secretary from Utah 

Mrs. Smoot manifestly did not even want us there. We were to all 
appearances a thorn in her flesh. They are both dead and I hate 
to say this but I must, especially when I think of a Mormon Apostle 
coming the nearest to any member of the Church to being an 
actual national leader of the dominant party of the greatest nation 
on earth or that ever was on the earth. I am also reliably informed 
that before his death he said to a mutual friend that he respected 
me much more than he did one of his other rivals for the Senate 
because I fought in the open. But such has been the end (which I 
was glad to witness) of a period of almost insane partisanship that 
wrecked brotherhood and old friendships. My own intense devo- 
tion to my party was one of my weaknesses as well as sources of 
success, because I always received generously any favor I sought 
from the Democratic Party. 

While Senator Smoot and I were always on speaking terms, 
there was no love lost on either side for the other. We were bitter 
political opponents, so neither called on the other and we were 
not at all sociable with each other though we were far from home. 
I know of no other such relationship in my life. That, for example, 
was not true as to former Senator George Sutherland, for we were 
somewhat more sociable due to our having been college room- 
mates and bed-fellows. I visited him on rare occasions in his office 
but never visited Senator Smoot, all of which was due to the 
intensity of the prevailing political partisanship in Utah. I doubt 
that it was ever exceeded anywhere— or at any time. No killings, 
however, resulted from it. But otherwise friendly relations were 
strained to the limit. Mormons were inclined to be about as serious 
about their political convictions as their religious convictions. 1 
certainly was, and so were the Mormons generally after they got 
well-settled in their convictions. My seriousness increased because 
I was indignant over so many Saints becoming Republicans over- 
night at the suggestion and appeal of their religious leaders. 1 " 

I recognize that I was never intimate with the Senator or knew 
him beyond his life as Senator. To me he was simply a candidate 
for the United States Senate out of the darkness of the firmament, 
all of a sudden. I had never known anything of his prior political 
activities. So to me, a keen observer of political events, his entrance 

18 Memorandum dated Sept.-Oct. 1942, Box 9, fd 6. 


Chapter 7 

into political life was purely meteoric. I had never even head but 
little of his religious activities. It was said of him, for exampl, that 
he did not distinguish himself as a missionary in Englari. He 
evidently spent his time in the office of the mission tendig to 
business matters for which he was well-fitted, and did not corplete 
his mission due to a call from home on the death of his fathc. He 
then became the successful manager of the Provo Woolen Mis of 
the Church, and that was his conspicuous achievement whn he 
was elected Senator, because he had certainly not distingished 
himself as an Apostle. 

I have no doubt that a man whose dominating instincts fihim 
only for cold-blooded business and partisan politics (as I btieve 
was the case with Smoot) cannot fill the role of an Apostle c the 
Lord at the same time. Again, here was an Apostle who never .em- 
onstrated the first sign of love or even cordiality for me, a briher 
in the Gospel. I regret to say that I was not much better, but did 
want to be more friendly in Washington than he probably didbut 
he never made the slightest effort while I did. One day, the Sena- 
tor, President Grant, and Congressman Milton H. Welling visted 
my office (I do not recall for what purpose) and I was delighted ind 
surprised to see Smoot in my office with the others. I was anxbus 
to make a friend of him and hastened to say so. Unfortunately, 
however, without first indicating sufficiently my friendly intuitbn, 
I said: “Senator, your partisanship has made me ashamed of my 
own ...” He did not wait for me to finish the sentence and instantly 
jumped up and walked out, and the other two followed him in spite 
of my appeal for them to remain. I was never more surprised in my 
life. In fact I was stunned and chagrined beyond measure for hav- 
ing spoiled the only opportunity (if it was one) at reconciliation. 
With reasonable promptness thereafter, I do not remember how 
long, I telephoned the Senator expressing my regrets and good in- 
tentions and asked for an interview which he granted. I related to 
him my regret for our lack of cordial relations and my failure to 
make that clear when he called and that I did desire a better under- 
standing. I told him that my differences with him were purely po- 
litical and not otherwise personal or unfriendly. He appeared 
pleased and willing to be agreeable, but was not warm or very 
hearty in any of his expressions. Our relations thereafter were not 
212 materially changed, though I always thought he was a little more 

Assistant Secretary from Utah 

cordial, but it was not distinctly so. I was told, however, by a mutual 
friend that the Senator sometime after said to him that he had a 
good deal more respect for me that he did for Welling because he 
believed that I was open and on the square, or above board. He 
probably expected more from Welling, for when he was elected he 
was a stake president. 

To Smoot’s credit he rose to great power and influence in 
Washington and was noted for his industry and attention to 
business. My attention was first called to these facts in a very 
striking and impressive way. I was in a conversation with several 
of the important governors of the first Federal Reserve Board. We 
wanted something done in Congress. I think it was Governor 
William Harding who said, “If we could get Senator Smoot inter- 
ested, it would be put over.” That really surprised me. It would 
have been an equal surprise for them to know that my influence 
with him would have been less than that of any of them. I do not 
recall whether anything was said on that subject or not, but my 
presence probably suggested Smoot. Obviously, I never traveled 
on my credit with Smoot. Our relations soon became known to my 
intimates, and this was early in my presence there. I do not recall 
ever having asked him for a favor, or vice versa. 

On one of the very serious occasions in the Senate during 
World War I, Smoot either voluntarily or on request offered a 
notable prayer in the Senate. While he rarely got on to religious 
subjects in a public way, I believe he did in private conversation. 
In my first interview with Franklin Roosevelt when on my mission 
and he was governor, he related having had an informative con- 
versation with the Senator about the Church. That was in connec- 
tion with his statement to me that the Mormon Church followed 
the scriptures more closely than any other church. 

The Senator, although we lived near his home during our four 
years in Washington, never called on us or suggested a call from 
us, although there had never been a personal difference between 
any of the four of us. On one occasion during the first months of 
our residence in Washington the Senator walked past our home 
when we were sitting on the porch not far from the sidewalk. I 
fancy he did not know where we lived or he would not have walked 
past our door. But he saw us (could not avoid it), nodded his head, 
and emotionlessly walked on without a word as if he had no 


Chapter 7 

thought of stopping a moment or any interest in us, although we 
responded very appropriately but did not rush out to stop hint. He 
certainly did not invite it. He was never in our home nor was his 
wife. He was in Salt Lake City when we celebrated our fiftieth 
wedding anniversary to which we invited him and a large number 
of guests. Most of the leading Church officials were present; the 
First Presidency and even the President of the Twelve, Rudger 
Clawson, were there, although Clawson had never before been in 
our home. (He was unpopular with the Dinwoodeys due to his 
divorce from Mrs. Moyle’s sister.) It was a notable event held at 
the homes and on the beautiful and extensive grounds of our sons 
Henry and Gilbert on the farm in Cottonwood on the Highland 
Drive in 1937 when we were again living in Washington. The 
Smoots did not come, and offered no apology. 

Smoot never at any time showed or indicated any desire to be 
friendly even when I became somewhat popular with the other 
Church leaders generally and was out of politics for good and all 
because of age and retirement, and the past was being forgotten. 
He died in February 1942, and I retired in 1940 (July 19), and thus 
ended anything but a Christian, brotherly, or religious relation- 
ship. So far as 1 know or have occasion to think I was not an 
exception among those who fought him vigorously in politics, and 
while severe I did not go as far as B. H. Roberts and some others. 
I do not know or have never heard that he claimed the contrary. 
All three of his sons, both by action and words, indicated clearly a 
real respect for me. One son who lived in Provo has always been 
very cordial with me. He repeatedly stepped out of his way in Salt 
Lake and in Provo to speak to me in a very friendly way, the last 
time early this year or late last year. He stopped me with a hearty 
greeting and said in the conversation that followed: “I have always 
highly respected you.” I in return have always liked him. Our more 
than mere acquaintance commenced when with Henry I chanced 
to sit beside him at a football game in Provo, during which we 
chatted freely and I thought he was a very nice chap. The compli- 
ment which he went out of his way to make led me to think that 
the Senator must have spoken more favorably of me to them than 
I presumed he would. At all events, as I have said before, as time 
has passed into my eighties there is a growing feeling that if I knew 
more of what the Senator actually did and said I would have greater 


Assistant Secretary from Utah 

respect for him and greater appreciation for what he did and less 
appreciation for what I have condemned. But I have many times 
thought that the Lord had nothing to do with his being made an 
Apostle or Senator and I have a growing belief rather than disbelief 
that the Lord after all did probably have something to do with it. 19 

To Defeat Senator Smoot? 

Notwithstanding my desire to retire from full-time public life, 
my opposition to Smoot almost led me into a campaign for the 
Senate again in 1920. To demonstrate my state of mind at the time, 
I include the following excerpts from a letter I wrote to my brother 
Stephen on April 24, 1920: 

“I am sorry that your political vision is narrowed down to an 
interest in two individuals. If I considered self-interest only, I 
would avoid the possibility of my being a candidate for any office, 
for the reason that it is not only extremely expensive, but to go 
through a campaign as I did six years ago and probably would again 
if I became a candidate, either for the Senate or Governor, it would 
involve a most trying ordeal and one which my nerves may not 

“My health is excellent, everybody speaks of how well I look, 
but my nerves have not fully recovered from the operation I went 
through a year ago. I have thought for six years that my nerves 
were more or less impaired by the ordeal through which I went six 
years ago. Then we had a very imperfect organization, new county 
officers, and very little help from the other state candidates. On 
all sides, it was generally believed that I was making a fight against 
inevitable defeat. 

“Now the situation is quite different, although the sentiment 
seems to be that it would be difficult to defeat Senator Smoot, 
and that idea will probably constitute our greatest obstacle to 
success in the coming campaign. As that idea, however, is being 
circulated, it makes me more inclined to get into the fight for 
all I am worth. If I know myself, I will be guided by a sense of 
duty to the state and my friends, rather than subserving my 
personal wishes. 

“I feel the honors obtained already are as much as I deserve 

19 Memorandum dated Sept.-Oct. 1943, Box 10, fd 3. 

Chapter 7 

and they should be enough, especially as I am assured that if I want 
to try for further honors I will have the confidence and support of 
my old friends and the party that has stood so solidly behind me 
for over twenty years. I consider that the crowning compliment of 
my life. 

Exchange with President Grant over Smoot 

Just a few days later, I was deeply chagrined to read in the 
Washington newspapers that President Grant had endorsed Sena- 
tor Smoot’s candidacy. I consequently wrote the following letter 
to my intimate friend, as I had always considered him to be: 

“Dear President Grant: 

“I enclose a clipping from Thursday’s Washington Post, contain- 
ing a front page article written by its special correspondent, John 
Callan O’Laughlin. The article has attracted much attention and 
caused inquiries from prominent men. I take the statements so far 
as they relate to you, to be correct, because they are consistent with 
statements you made while here, and are corroborated by numer- 
ous letters from home advising me of the extraordinary Republi- 
can campaign being carried on in Senator Smoot’s interest, and 
particularly the importance of your position on the subject, and 
the extent to which the columns of the Deseret News are open to 
the press agent of the Senator. 

“You will see the writer says that you have stated to friends 
that ‘you will support Smoot’s renomination and reelection’, and 
that you said to him: ‘I am a Democrat, but I appreciate Senator 
Smoot’s unusual qualifications and the desirability of having in the 
Senate in this time of reconstruction, a man of his attainments.’ 

“I have hoped that the President of the Church in particular, 
and the Apostles, because of their peculiar and exclusive claim of 
Divine guidance in matters relating to the welfare of all the people 
would as a rule at least, avoid partisan politics, unless the occasion 
really warranted their coming down from the exalted plane on 
which so many of the people place them and participating in the 
discord, if not bitterness, of partisan politics. As you know, such 
has always been my hope, even if a Democrat should become the 


20 James H. Moyle to Stephen Moyle, 24 Apr. 1920, Box 2, fd 5. 

Assistant Secretary from Utah 

President, and consequently my disappointment when I find that 
your utterances are drawn into the campaign, which from the 
extraordinary efforts being made by the Republicans so early, 
indicates that it is to be a contest of the first magnitude. 

“This unfortunate condition appears to my mind to be magni- 
fied when such a course is taken by one who makes prominent the 
fact that he is a Democrat, and notwithstanding all that supports 
a man who is himself, as you well know, so intensely partisan. One 
who has persistently opposed everything Democratic, as if it were 
because it was Democratic. One who has opposed practically every 
measure of relief to the many, every progressive reform proposed, 
both in Utah and the Nation, indeed one who has, by his consistent 
support of everything the favored classes have wanted, gained their 
unqualified support and naturally has earned the disapproval of 
those who are called the laboring classes. 

“Even the Republican correspondent to whom you gave your 
interview, O’Laughlin, says ‘The Senator has the business interests 
with him, and it is in laboring circles only that he is weak.’ The 
importance of the latter he attempts to minimize by suggesting it 
is with the Democratic party anyhow. 

“In the same connection, I call attention to the editorial 
recently appearing in the Deseret News, quoting in black type an 
editorial from the New York Post [sic] applauding Senator Smoot, 
to which the Deseret News editor adds the unqualified endorsement 
and approval of the paper, with the statement that the editorial of 
the Post come with greater force because it is an independent 
Democratic paper. As a matter of fact, that paper is owned by Thos. 
W. Lamont, 23 Broadway, New York, the home office of J. P. 
Morgan & Co. 

“A few days before the News heralded the coming of a letter, 
and subsequently published it, from Mr. Leighton, an engineer, 
with a long residence in Washington where he was deprived of the 
privilege of participating in politics, but on account of the great 
usefulness of Senator Smoot he patriotically writes a long letter in 
which he emphasizes his lack of interest or knowledge about Utah 
affairs, except the great value of the services of our senior Senator. 
Upon inquiry, I was reliably informed that the gentleman is a 
$10,000 a year employee of the Utah Light & Power Co., of Salt 


Chapter 7 

Lake City. Well may Mr. Leighton say that the Senator has the big 
interests behind him, but not the little interest of the many! 

“Permit me also to call attention to a few of the many evidences 
of the hroad, liberal, constructive Democratic statesmanship of the 
man you say is so well equipped for performing signal service. He 
opposed the direct election of Senators by the people, making it 
possible to tax incomes which might compel wealth to contribute 
from its abundance and deprived it of the power to corruptly 
control the United States Senate. He also opposed or voted against 
practically all of the important constructive, beneficial democratic 
legislation enacted during the past seven years, including the 
Federal Reserve banking and currency system which dethroned 
the power of Wall Street, in its control of the money and banking 
system of the country and but for which the great war could not 
have been won and the most destructive of all panics avoided. He 
favored a high, protective tariff on the necessities of life. He 
opposed the revision of the tariff downward. He predicted that by 
such revision, that industries of the country would be ruined. Thus, 
while opposing everything Democratic, his devotion to everything 
Republican has been slavish in the extreme, even to the following 
of the Republican leaders in their opposition to the League of 
Nations, and their conspiracy to destroy the prestige and world 
leadership of the President of the United States because he was a 
Democrat. Hence the difficulty in understanding why a Democrat 
should want such a partisan reelected. 

“It will be said that Senator Smoot opposed the League of 
Nations without reservations at a time when it was unpopular to 
do so, but if you still bear in mind the extraordinary popularity of 
the President, due to the unparalleled reforms and constructive 
legislation accomplished under his leadership, with the consistent 
opposition of the Senator, crowned with his becoming the recog- 
nized spokesman of the liberty-loving of all nations, and the world 
leader in the establishment of an international tribunal calculated 
to promote eternal peace, which movement was regarded as the 
realization of a great inspired idea. 

“You must realize that without the successful leadership of 
Woodrow Wilson in the termination of the great war and unpar- 
alleled accomplishments of his administration being in some way 
218 obscured, there was no hope of political success for the Republican 

Assistant Secretary from Utah 

party in the pending National election, and therefore the round 
robin of the Republican side of the Senate, followed with the 
manifest determination to talk to death and obscure the League 
of Nations and destroy the influence of the President, with eight 
months of villainous misrepresentation, hairsplitting sophistries, 
and inflated fears. 

“You will recall that Senator Smoot when in Utah last summer 
said that the amendments which the President had secured to the 
first draft of the treaty and league which he brought back from 
Europe, met his objections and that he could then support the 
league as amended, but on his return to Washington he found that 
Republican leaders had determined that that was not enough, and 
then he joined with them in supporting, although he never openly 
expressed his opposition except by his vote in the United States 
Senate. This statesman’s voice was not heard there on that greatest 
of all questions, one way or the other, but he subserviently followed 
Republican leadership throughout. His leadership in Utah politics 
resulted in the State being one of the most reactionary and 
undemocratic in the Union. Then on the moral issue of prohibi- 
tion, it was not until the last hope of saving it was gone that he 
deserted his great ally, the liquor interest. 

“If his attitude on any of the great constructive issues that have 
been presented to the country had been in any sense consistent 
with the views of a Democrat, your attitude would not be so surpris- 
ing. You would do me a personal favor if you would indicate what 
real constructive legislation the Senator ever fathered, or what 
beneficial, constructive democratic legislation he ever failed to op- 
pose. It is true he voted, as the Republicans did generally, for war 
measures, both from patriotic reasons as well as self-preservation 
politically. He, however, at the same time either on the floor of the 
Senate or outside of the Senate, expressed his antagonism and op- 
position to most of the measures for which he finally voted, includ- 
ing such important measures as the food control act, and so on. 

“I will deeply esteem your indicating wherein he ever opposed 
the special interest, or wherein predatory wealth was not his friend. 
Was he not always hand in glove with and supporting such reac- 
tionary leaders as Senator Penrose, whom even the now immortal- 
ized Roosevelt rebelled against and condemned them in more 
scathing terms than it is possible for me to express. I mention par- 


Chapter 7 

ticularly Roosevelt’s description of those gentlemen in the Conven- 
tion in the Chicago Auditorium in the summer of 1 9 1 2, in which he 
called the gentlemen to whom I refer— ‘thieves, crooks, and second- 
story men.’ I hope you will not consider it offensive when I suggest 
that notwithstanding all this our senior Senator is pointed to by 
you, a Democrat, as needed during this period of reconstruction. 

“In the interest of fairness, and in view of the fact that your 
position is already one of the great factors in the Smoot campaign 
in Utah, if not surrounding States, may I not, as a Democrat, ask 
you to state whether your position in this campaign relative to the 
election of Senator Smoot is any different from the position you 
have taken when the Senator was a candidate for election in 
previous campaigns, and if so, in what particulars, except that you 
now publicly favor the re-election of the Senator. 

“I congratulate you, however, on being open and aboveboard 
in what you have to say. I would a million times rather have you 
frankly and openly express your views as you have done, than 
permit them to be filtered through gum-shoe political hirelings, 
especially when they occupy ecclesiastical offices, as has been done 
in previous elections through Senator Smoot’s lieutenants. If you 
are going to take part in the campaign, and you surely are doing 
so very early and effectively, however unconscious you may be of 
the fact, I hope will be with the same open frankness and candor 
that has always characterized your conduct. 

“In view of the fact that no member of the Presidency, or the 
twelve Apostles, whatever their views or political convictions, has 
ever publicly expressed themselves in opposition to the election of 
Senator Smoot in any previous campaign, and in view of the fact 
that so many of his religious followers believe he is performing a 
divinely-called mission in serving in the United States Senate, and 
in view of the fact that he has, and seems to propose to continue 
to perform no other than a political service during the useful 
portion of his life, while at the same time occupying the divine 
calling of an Apostle of Jesus Christ, the special advocate of peace 
and love and unity, I feel that you, and if not, Senator Smoot, 
should relieve the situation of any doubt or uncertainty as to why 
such an unusual condition should appear to exist.” 21 


21 James H. Moyle to Heber J. Grant, 29 Apr. 1920, Box 2, fd 5. 

Assistant Secretary from Utah 

President Grant’s reply was not particularly heartening. 

“My Dear Brother Moyle: 

“Your letter of April 29th reached me Saturday, the 8th. I 
thought it was a long letter on the health question, and laid it 
aside without reading a single word, just noticing that there were 
six pages of it. Sunday I went to Logan; but Monday, in the 
morning between three and four A.M. I was dictating to my 
machine a lot of correspondence for the Presidency, as well as 
answering personal letters, and I read your letter for the first 

“There are many things in your letter that are very surprising 
to me and, in my judgment, not written in a proper spirit, and 
not worthy of a High Councillor in one of the Stakes of Zion. I 
do not intend to take the time to discuss all the matters men- 
tioned in your letter, as I am very busy, and leave for San Fran- 
cisco this evening. 

“I admit that Brother Smoot is a strong partisan, but I feel that 
your letter is equally as partisan and as full of bias and prejudice 
as anything you see in him. I do not think he is one particle more 
part isan than your dear self. You ask for my free and frank opinion, 
and you have it. 

“You ask if I occupy the same position with reference to the 
re-election of Reed Smoot that I have done in previous campaigns. 
Twelve years ago I was opposed to Reed Smoot being elected, 
because in my judgment he did not stand square on the Prohibi- 
tion question. The Legislature, however, elected him overwhelm- 
ingly. Six years ago I was decidedly in favor of his re-election, and 
in a quiet way did what I could in his favor. I am unqualifiedly in 
favor of his re-election at the present time. I look upon him as one 
of the most practical, levelheaded businessmen in the United 
States Senate. I am positive that he could command a salary of 
$50,000.00 a year in more than one of the great banking institu- 
tions of our country. While he may not have possessed as much 
constructive and progressive ability as some senators on Demo- 
cratic measures with which I would be in hearty accord, neverthe- 
less I recognize his great ability and the need of just such a man in 
the Senate at the present time. I believe Reed Smoot to be the most 
valuable financial asset in the Senate, and that through his labors 


Chapter 7 

there will be a saving of millions upon millions of dollars for this 
country. When I was on the Board of Directors of Provo Woollen 
Mills I admired his business acumen. 

“You have my confidence. I have always admired your frank- 
ness. I rejoiced beyond measure when you were made Assistant 
Secretary of the Treasury. I have prayed for you as sincerely as I 
have ever prayed for Brother Smoot. I have no idea of taking an 
active part in any political campaign. I voted, as you know, for 
McKinley and Roosevelt; but at the same time I voted for you for 
Governor, although my own brother-in-law, Heber M. Wells, was 
running for the same office. 

“I have not changed my mind, in the least, regarding the 
League of Nations. I would have preferred it without reservations, 
but inasmuch as reservations have been adopted I am not in favor 
of the League with reservations, rather than have it defeated. The 
Post correspondent misquotes me in intimating that I have had a 
change of heart, because of being converted to Brother Smoot’s 
position. I have had no conversation whatever with Brother Smoot 
regarding the League of Nations.” 22 

I answered with the following: 

“My dear President Grant: 

“Your letter of the 13th ultimo was duly received. It is not 
altogether a surprise, although I did think you might understand 
my viewpoint more perfectly than I believe you do. However, 1 do 
not wish to continue unnecessarily the discussion of a subject that 
is not pleasing. 

“I note with deep interest your statement that my letter is 
‘not written in the proper spirit.’ I admit that it was not a pleasing 
task for me to present so bluntly to you facts and conclusions 
which to my mind are unavoidable to one who is deeply in earnest 
and absolutely loyal to his political party. My letter was written 
as a partisan, to one professing to belong to the same party, who 
I thought was taking a most inconsistent course as a member of 
that party. Your letter is written, I take it, purely from a religious 
standpoint. I have no right to be surprised or to object to the 


22 Heber J. Grant to James H. Moyle, 13 May 1920, Box 2, fd 5. 

Assistant Secretary from Utah 

viewpoint expressed in your letter, but I wanted you to know just 
how I felt, because I do not want to fly under false colors not to 
embarrass any one, and particularly the Council of which I am 
a member. 

“Six years ago, I presented the same views and attitude quite 
as clearly to our much lamented friend, Richard W. Young, and in 
a more limited way to John M. Knight, Frank R. Snow, Alonzo 
Young, and other Democratic members of the Council, each of 
whom appeared to sympathize with my views and mental attitude, 
although I think they all indicated that they would not express 
themselves as I did. 1 would not embarrass them by my political 
attitude and connection with them, any more than 1 would be 
willing to voluntarily do the same now. 

“I greatly appreciate the confidence you express in me now, 
as well as the vote you cast for me twenty years ago. As I remember 
your utterances, however, at the time you desired for the defeat 
of your brother-in-law, Heber M. Wells, not because of his political 
affiliations and views, but because you believed that his defeat 
would be a blessing to him. However, I appreciate the confidence 
you then expressed in me by the way you voted. 

“Please pardon me if wrong, for calling your attention to the 
fact that it was generally understood that the Legislature which was 
elected in 1908, and which re-elected Senator Smoot in 1909, was 
favorable to prohibition, and that Senator Smoot was reelected in 
the following January or February, before it was realized that the 
Smoot Federal appointee stood between the people in their de- 
mand for a prohibition law, and the Legislature. Was not your 
opposition to Senator Smoot due purely to his attitude toward 
prohibition, and not to his being elected United States Senator? 
At all events, if you opposed the election in November before he 
was elected in January or February of the next year, I do not think 
that any of the Democrats knew it, and therefore I remain in doubt 
as to whether you opposed the reelection of Senator Smoot, or 
merely opposed his attitude toward prohibition after he had been 

“I am very glad indeed to know that your views are not changed 
intrinsically on the merits of the League of Nations. I feel as you 
do on that subject, although I can not resist the belief that the 
President is right in insisting upon America honoring its obliga- 


Chapter 7 

tions to the allies, and his duty to mankind in insisting upon the 
League of Nations being a real, vital force in the accomplishment 
of the purpose for which it was organized. 

“It is with deep regret that I find the Democratic party of 
Utah is to still have the opposition of the President of the 
Church, no matter what his political views may be. When Wil- 
ford Woodruff was President, the Republicans made capital out 
of what they alleged to be a fact and telegraphed it all over the 
State, that President Woodruff had voted early, and for the elec- 
tion of Frank J. Cannon. During his administration, choice and 
lovable good soul as he was, the Democrats never realized any 
partisan support from him, and never asked it. Presidents Snow 
and Smith were Republicans. The latter never failed to exhibit 
his partisanship as far as he could do so without becoming posi- 
tively offensive, even to saying that if he had been in Congress 
when the much-desired and prayed for boon of Statehood was 
about to be given, he, as a Republican, would have opposed it 
or justified the action of the Republican party in opposing it, 
because Utah was so strongly Democratic. That, as 1 remember, 
was the substance of his address in the 17th Ward meeting 
house after a Democratic administration had given to Utah the 
greatest political boon it ever received, or ever can receive, State 

“My very soul has been tried by the utterances of such men 
as John Henry Smith, whom I always loved and admired, but in 
political campaigns felt like fighting to the very limit because of 
his extreme partisanship, with no Democrat occupying a like 
position giving comfort to Democrats like myself by joining in 
openly fighting such men. It is true that Anthony W. Ivins has 
always in private, but at times with great reticence, expressed the 
living convictions of a real Democrat. Your theater speech of 
twenty years ago, and your utterances on the prohibition question 
which after all, was a moral and not a political issue, and the 
utterances of the ill-fated Moses Thatcher, constitute the only 
real partisan comfort that ever came from one of the twelve 
Apostles, so far as I can recall. Whatever their views, as a rule if 
it were in opposition to the Republicans the same was suppressed, 
while men like Apostles Lyman and John Henry Smith, Reed 


Assistant Secretary from Utah 

Smoot, and others, made it their business to advocate Republi- 
canism in season and out.” 2 ' 

A Complete Democrat 

I present the foregoing to illustrate my feelings at the time 
with regard to Senator Smoot and that of the leadership of the 
Church that continued to interfere for the Republicans in politics. 
But I remained a complete Democrat, and my first experience in 
Washington only strengthened my loyalty to the party. 

I was present, for example, through the friendship of McAdoo, 
at the luncheon President Wilson gave at the White House to 
maybe twenty-five or thirty guests whom the President could trust 
on his return from Versailles. To us he unburdened his heavy- 
laden soul of the sentiments he had been compelled previously to 
withhold concerning that little “willful group.” The seal of history 
is now being rapidly forged and will soon be indelibly stamped on 
the verdict of all forward-looking men in everlasting condemna- 
tion of the martyrdom of President Wilson by the Cabot Lodges 
and the rest who sought to destroy (and did temporarily) the work 
of that great political seer, who died as so many seers have done . 24 

All that I can remember now is that it was an outburst of 
expressions I have not the ability to repeat, but I never heard 
anything more impressive or profound. He repeated some of the 
obstacles he had encountered and was encountering, and his 
characterization of his opponents, speaking generally and not 
personally, was as furious as it was brilliant. His incidental refer- 
ences to history were also impressively illuminating and pertinent. 
The one thing I distinctly recall, but cannot adequately describe, 
was the picture he presented of the men and their machinations 
against his efforts and their country’s welfare. And with historical 
references, he said they would be “impaled on history.” I would 
not attempt to convey the brilliance and effectiveness of that 
speech. But I can say that (if he knows what is going on in the 

23 James H. Moyle to HeberJ. Gram, 2 June 1920, Box 2, fd 5. 

24 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 1. Senator Henry Cabot Lodge of Massa- 
chusetts led a group of isolationist senators in a fight to defeat the Treaty of Versailles 
that included the League of Nations. The ultimate failure of the Senate to approve 
Wilson’s great dream was extremely detrimental to the president’s health, hence 
Moyle’s “martyrdom” reference. 


Chapter 7 

minds of thoughtful men) that he has realized the fulfillment of 
the vision he then presented of the world’s greatest tragedy— an- 
other world war. Millions of brave men are being slaughtered in 
battle and the lives of peaceful, unoffending men, women, and 
innocent children, with their homes, places of worship, businesses, 
hospitals, industry, and structures of civilization, are being de- 
stroyed as never before. That destruction has not yet reached its 
peak because America, the most powerful of all, is just commenc- 
ing to fight to end that devastation. And only the Battle of 
Armageddon will be more horrible and destructive. 

As Democratic National Committeeman, then and later, I was 
repeatedly in attendance at the councils of the party leaders who 
were distinctly Wilson men, and who later constituted the group 
who were for McAdoo for President, or were opposed to A1 Smith, 
such men as Senator-leader Carter Glass, Senator and now Secre- 
tary of State Cordell Hull, former Secretary of the Navy Josephus 
Daniels, and Senator Claude Swanson of Virginia. But of all the 
confidences I enjoyed and highly prized, that at the White House 
luncheon was the most quiet and obscure but nevertheless the 
most dramatic and significant. 25 

Hull was from Tennessee, quiet rather than the opposite, and 
conservative without being reactionary. He went along with Bryan, 
Wilson, and then Roosevelt with good Democratic heart and soul, 
and was loyal to each. I think he agreed with Bryan and Wilson as 
to low tariff. They believed that if this country was to be a gr eat 
manufacturer, raw materials must be kept free from tariff duties, 
and that manufactured articles should be protected incidentally by 
a tariff for revenue only. That as I remember was the position also 
of Grover Cleveland. It was not unfair as politics go for such 
protectionists to say that they were free traders. Their sympathies 
were Democratic and for the common man, but that Democracy 
was very different from that of the present. In those days the 
philosophy of the party was the Jeffersonian idea that that govern- 
ment which governs best governs least. Fundamentally, they were 
in sympathy with the doctrine of the great French economist who 
said (in effect) that “nature has interposed obstacles sufficient to 
the satisfaction of man’s wants and government should not in- 


25 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 1 . 

Assistant Secretary from Utah 

crease them.” I changed my mind later as to that maxim, but always 
(like Bryan, Wilson, and Hull) sympathized with it. JI> 

I discussed the Underwood Tariff in 1913 with Senator Under- 
wood and asked him why they put pretty much every chief product 
of the West on the free list, and I protested against it, because every 
great industry of the East was put on the protected list. Under- 
wood’s reply was that President Wilson had gone along with the 
East for general compromise but recognized personally that it was 
an injustice to the West. (Underwood was a real candidate for the 
Presidency in 1924.) Apparently, the steel and coal industry had 
demonstrated to the President the need for protection just as our 
Western industries had demonstrated the same to me. I therefore 
told Underwood that I had stood with the party from Cleveland 
on down and with its tariff policies as best I could because of my 
belief in its fundamentals and virtues generally, but that I could 
not support or defend a tariff that placed essentially all of the main 
products of the West on the free list and at the same time put the 
products of the East on the protected list. 

It is my recollection that under the Underwood Tariff of 1913 
about one quarter of a billion dollars in tariff revenue was col- 
lected, and that the first time the total annual expenditures of the 
Government reached a billion dollars was about 1907 when Teddy 
Roosevelt was President. And his reply to Democratic criticism was 
that we had become a billion-dollar nation. The expenditure then 
of a billion was more tragic than the expenditure of a hundred 
billion is now. Then, half that sum was considered an impossibility 
by the best financiers, just as a three billion dollar liberty loan was 
considered unfathomable in its consequences in 1917 when the 
president of a large bank said to a gathering of financiers, “We 
know something about the distance of the sun from the earth and 
the marvelous movements of the planetary system, but we know 
nothing about the importance, magnitude and consequence of a 
loan of three billion.” The thought frightened everyone."' 

26 Memorandum dated Oct. 1944, Box 1, fd 2. Moyle undoubtedly referred to 
Frederic Bastiat (1801-50) whose pamphlet Economic Sophisms expounded classic free- 

27 Memorandum dated Oct. 1944, Box 1, fd 2. 

Chapter 7 

My Resignation 

I tendered my resignation on the day President Harding took 
office. It was accepted instantly to take effect upon the qualifica- 
tion of my successor. Secretary Mellon, however, failed to recom- 
mend a successor to the President. I advised the Secretary that I 
was a Democratic National Committeeman, and had always been 
a fighting Democrat. I called Mellon’s attention to the political 
impropriety of my continuing in his office, but he wanted me to 
remain, although he made no formal request. 28 I was the last 
assistant Cabinet officer of the Wilson administration to be re- 
tained. 2 ' 1 

Several times thereafter I called the Secretary’s attention to 
the importance of my leaving. I said on one occasion that we would 
both be misunderstood if I remained longer because of my parti- 
san activities before coming to Washington. He smiled signifi- 
cantly and in his extremely quiet way said, “You are the one man 
the politicians have demanded that I should get rid of on political 
grounds.” I replied that I did not blame them, and that I was sure 
Senator Reed Smoot was one of the politicians. I added that he 
was fully justified from a partisan viewpoint, because 1 had never 
left anything undone to accomplish his defeat. I then said, “If I 
have ever left anything undone to accomplish his defeat, may the 
Lord forgive me, for I did not intend it.” I explained that it was 
not personal, but purely political, and because 1 was strongly 
opposed to a man being an ecclesiastical and a political leader at 
the same time. I stated we were both members of the same church, 
and so on. 

Shortly after this conversation, I was speaking with Angus M. 
McLean, then on the board of the United States Finance Corpo- 
ration, and now governor of North Carolina. He told me that 
Mellon had said to him that Senator Smoot had indeed demanded 
my removal on political grounds. McLean was a wealthy planter 
and manufacturer and an intimate friend of Internal Revenue 
Commissioner Blair, also of North Carolina. 

In late July 1921, I went to Secretary Mellon and said, “I have 
been absent from the mountains too long. I have been here four 


28 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 1 . 

29 Memorandum dated Apr. 1943, Box 9, fd 7. 

Assistant Secretary from Utah 

years and now I am going. If there is anything whatever needing 
my attention I will return and settle it. But I will leave prior to 
August 1.” And I did, but he continued to pay my salary for a 
month after 1 left. Again, he never explicitly said he wanted me to 
remain, but his conduct clearly indicated that he did, and though 
he rarely said anything, he always obviously appreciated what I did 
and never reversed me on anything. 

During the winter of 1928, former Utah Governor Heber M. 
Wells said to me and my wife at his home in Washington that 
Secretary Mellon told him that he did not want me to leave. When 
1 left, he apparently called one of his attorneys, a Mr. Beal from 
Pittsburg, to do my work unofficially. Beal merely initialed papers 
and then passed them on to one of die other two assistants to sign. 
Mellon had had no trouble with my divisions of the Treasury, but 
did have with the others, so I believe he was glad to be relieved of 
the necessity of appointing another. ’" 

McAdoo for President 

1 was admitted into the inner councils of the leaders of the 
Democratic National Convention from 1917 (when I was Assis- 
tant Secretary of the Treasury and McAdoo was so conspicuous 
in the party) down to 1932 when I voluntarily gave up my con- 
nection with the convention. I was Democratic National Commit- 
teeman and was elected four times with practically no opposition, 
the only man ever elected by the Utah party for more than one 
term. The opposition of William R. Wallace who tried to succeed 
me was feeble. He was ever after my only envious and virulent 
political enemy, so far as I know. While he was a commendable 
citizen who attained wealth, he lacked the stamina and courage 
necessary to command the respect and confidence of voters. If 
he had had courage and political sagacity he would probably have 
been Senator in the place of Professor Elbert Thomas, who was 
new and unknown outside of his university calling when a can- 
didate in 1932. 31 

The most conspicuous of the inner Wilson-McAdoo circle of 
which I was a member were Senator Joe Robinson, later a leader 

30 Memorandum dated Nov. 1928, Box 9, fd 3. 

31 Memorandum dated Sept.-Oct. 1942, Box 9, fd 6. 


Chapter 7 

in the Senate, and Carter Glass, first a leader in the House and 
later Secretary of the Treasury and Senator of outstanding fame. 
Glass was a friend of McAdoo but harbored Presidential hopes 
himself and at the New York convention of 1924 maintained an 
open headquarters. Cordell Hull was then a leader in the House 
on the tariff and related issues. He was later Senator, chairman of 
the Democratic National Committee, and Secretary of State. I also 
worked closely in this connection with Senator Claude Swanson of 
Virginia, later Secretary of the Navy. I knew Josephus Daniels 
better than either Hull or Swanson, but he was also a rival of 
McAdoo’s for the nomination in 1924, the same with Newton 
Baker. I was intimate with H.S. Cummings, chairman of the 
convention and later Attorney General under Roosevelt, and also 
Daniel C. Roper, who became Secretary of Commerce in the New 
Deal. All of these men were strong Wilson followers and most if 
not all were nominally McAdoo men. 

My friendship with Cummings was welded strongly by the fact 
that when he was chairman of the party after the success of 
Harding in 1920, he was greatly embarrassed by the failure of 
prominent Democrats to aid him in securing the money and credit 
needed to take care of the financial obligations of the party. With 
about fifteen others, I responded by endorsing notes to banks for 
quite a sum. Those notes tormented Cummings throughout his 
tenure of office as chairman. And it gave me and the others great 
concern, because the Republicans persisted in defeating the 
Democrats for twelve years following Wilson, and patriotic Demo- 
crats were scarce when demand was made for payment of the 
notes, or renewal and security, as frequent deaths of those on the 
notes and financial depression struck a number of the signers, 
especially when serious demand was made for payment. When I 
was at home but visiting in the East much later, he urged me to be 
his guest at his home in Connecticut. We became very friendly. He 
was tall, slender, and a typical Yankee type, the most so of any of 
my official acquaintances. 

It was during my activities on the Democratic National Com- 
mittee following the Wilson administration or near its close that I 
became acquainted with Frank Hague, who had just come into 
some real importance in New Jersey and was attracting a wider 
230 attention. He was put on the finance committee of the convention. 

Assistant Secretary from Utah 

He had been notably successful in financing the New Jersey 
organization. It was then that 1 got a first view of how he and others 
of his boss kind did business. Wilson would not play ball with them, 
and McAdoo, as a consequence, inherited some of Tammany’s 
anti-Wilson opposition. He did not surround himself with their 
kind. Being so strongly a follower of Wilson and of McAdoo, I did 
not have much to do with Tammany types. Well, Hague was smart 
then (as time has since demonstrated him to be), but to me he was 
altogether a new type of politician. Those 1 knew were in the first 
place high-toned morally and politically, gentlemen of the finest 
type, really big-minded men who prided themselves on maintain- 
ing a high level of official conduct. They were men generally above 
reproach or question. Hague, on the other hand, was a recent 
success in practical politics who made no bones about saying freely 
that he was not in it altogether for his health. His ambition was to 
control Jersey City and New Jersey as Tammany did New York. 

He was ready at his first meeting with us to solve the indebt- 
edness problem in the same way he solved many problems in his 
domain. He said, for example, that when a contractor wanted to 
do state business he was asked to make a nice contribution to 
the Democratic Committee and so on. There did not seem to be 
any emphasis even on keeping it quiet. His open, frank, and 
breezy manner and utterances in the face of this rather shocked 
me, and there did not outwardly seem to be any crookedness 
about him. He appeared clean-cut and decidedly open but with 
no patience (as he clearly indicated) for indirect action. Go after 
what you want directly and emphatically was his advice and policy. 
That, I presume, accounts for the fact that he is still in business 
and flourishing. '" 

The Martyrdom of Woodrow Wilson 

Fortunately, the Democratic party is not the party of wealth in 
spite of some trouble with Hague-types. The other party cannot 
make the same claim. Why do the Republicans cater to the “fat 
fellows” who love only power more than money, or money more 
than humankind? Why do the big, fat financiers and their satellites 
hate Franklin Roosevelt as bitterly as they did Jefferson and 

32 Memorandum dated Oct. 1944, Box 1, fd 2. 


Chapter 7 

Jackson, and why did the lovers of human slavery and enemies of 
freedom hate Lincoln, and why did the isolationists hate Woodrow 
Wilson and his League of Nations to prevent war with a merciless 
hatred that made him a real martyr in the cause of human welfare 
and actually cause his death? I saw and met Wilson as he was just 
a few months before the League’s defeat in the balm of mental 
greatness and good health, and then I saw him unable to stand, 
crumpled in an arm chair, at his last public reception only a few 
weeks before his untimely death. I attended his funeral in the same 
house, not as an employee in his administration but as a visitor 
from the great West in Washington. I never attended a funeral 
where there was greater solemnity and awe, and a deep and 
abiding pity mingled with regret and respect. And now as 1 look 
back upon the tragedy of his last months and survey his great work 
divested of the little things that pass away with time, the immortal 
greatness of him survives and grows brighter. It will become still 
more brilliant as the disinterested and impartial view his greatness 
and the fact that he was the greatest political seer of his time and 
will forever stand beside Jefferson and Lincoln in the history of 
the country. He had a vision of World War II if his League of 
Nations failed, and he died because of that failure. And he realized 
its consequences. Is it possible that the same leadership that caused 
that failure will lead America in the unequalled crisis and unpar- 
alleled emergency that now (1944) confronts the greatest of all 
nations in the hour of its greatest peril and the imminent peril of 
civilization itself? Only one totally ignorant of history would want 
to return the Republicans to power." 

I attended the meeting of the Democratic National Committee 
in Washington and was present during the unprecedented scenes 
that attended and followed the Doheny and other disclosures in 
the oil lease investigation of January 1924." While there, Mrs. 
Moyle" and I, with members of the committee, met former Presi- 
dent Wilson at his home on January 15, which was his last recep- 

33 Memorandum dated Feb.-Apr. 1944, Box 10, fd 6. 

34 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 1 . Reference is to the beginnings of the 
“Teapot Dome Scandal” that racked the Harding-Coolidge administration. 

35 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 1. Evelyn Moyle Nelson placed a note at 
the top of this memorandum indicating that she attended the Wilson reception with 
her father because Mrs. Moyle was ill. 


Assistant Secretary from Utah 

tion, and while I felt it an honor to meet with him and to shake 
hands with him, it was not without regret because I realized that 
he was slowly but surely dying. His form was cramped and twisted 
as he sat in an armchair and raised his hand with manifest effort 
to save his strength. He did not again attend Keith’s, 36 where he 
was accustomed to go every Saturday night when his health would 
permit, and where he invariably received a reception and demon- 
stration unparalleled. The house was always filled, partly on his 
account, and many who did not attend either waited outside to see 
him at the beginning or close of the theater. 

The newspapers did not overstate the scenes during his last 
hours and burial. People kneeled on the wet, cold ground, in 
inclement weather, with bared heads, in solemn prayer, before 
he died, and although Senators and most important officers of 
his administration and warmest friends were not invited in order 
to make the funeral private and like the simple life he chose to 
lead, tens of thousands stood on the street and in vacant lots, or 
climbed trees and stood in any place available to get a view of 
the cortege, some standing for many hours to hold desirable 

It was said the floral tributes must have cost $50,000. They 
filled the Wilson home, the National Cathedral, and the balance 
went to the Walter Reed Army Hospital. Many of the floral pieces 
were such as I have never seen for size and beauty. 

Teapot Dome and the Defeat of McAdoo 

The meeting of the Democratic National Committee was 
called to fix the date of the National Convention (made June 24) 
and to provide for the payment of the Committee’s indebtedness. 
It was largely successful through the payment of $205,000 for 
giving the privilege to New York of entertaining the delegates. New 
York was determined to have it, and the financial condition of the 
committee contributed materially in the selection of the location. 
Holding the meeting in New York was considered unfavorable to 
Mr. McAdoo’s candidacy because the city was so wet and the 

36 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 1. Keith’s was a noted vaudeville theater in 
Washington and a part of the famous “Keith’s Circuit” subsequently incorporated 
into the RKO chain of theaters. 

Chapter 7 

influence of Wall Street so great, and Mr. McAdoo, like President 
Wilson, mortally offended Tammany by refusing to make satisfac- 
tory appointments. The right kind of Tammany men, however, 
were given important positions, but that did not count. The 
committeemen, nevertheless, were very strong for Mr. McAdoo. 
Fifty-two delegates, a majority of all present, were openly and 
publicly for him. " 

Mrs. Weston Vernon, the National Committeewoman from 
Utah, and I felt that we were fairly reflecting the sentiment of the 
state in being among the fifty-two. About half of the balance would 
not come out openly because their states had favorite sons, most 
of whom only looked for a compliment. Others did not feel their 
states were so clearly for McAdoo that they were justified in 
indicating the state’s preference. This was particularly true in 
states like Illinois. 

John W. Davis had only four committeemen openly in his 
favor. No other had more than two. Even in Alabama, with Oscar 
Underwood making a vigorous fight and regarded as the next 
leading candidate, the woman member from his state was openly 
for Mr. McAdoo, and her husband was at Chicago urging McAdoo 
to run. 

Before the Doheny oil disclosures, the unmistakable trend of 
political thought was so strong for McAdoo that there was a very 
general effort to get on his bandwagon. Prominent and active 
leaders who had opposed him vigorously four years before were 
openly for him. ' 8 

The effect of the disclosures in the oil lease investigation was 
so exciting and hysterical that many ordinarily clear-headed men 
were taken off their feet. Excepting the Great War, the excite- 
ment was never before equalled, according to some of the old 
newspapermen. The excitement reached such a pitch that when 
Senator Smoot, in the presence of the Senate investigating com- 
mittee, passed a note to Doheny merely asking him to call at his 

37 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 1. McAdoo was a prohibitionist, or a 
“dry,” while Governor Alfred Smith of New York was a leading “wet.” 

38 Undated memorandum. Box 8, fd 1. McAdoo had done some legal work for 
Edward L. Doheny and his oil firm. Though his work had nothing to do with the scan- 
dal, McAdoo inevitably suffered politically because of his albeit innocent connection 
with Doheny. 


Assistant Skcretary from Utah 

office, demand was made for its contents and an explanation, 
and the day following the Washington Times, in a cartoon on its 
front page, pictured Navy Secretary Edwin Denby, Doheny, and 
Smoot with their backs to the wall, and a firing squad in the rear. 

When McAdoo came to Washington after President Wilson’s 
funeral, the feeling was that everybody connected with the ad- 
ministration who could or should have any knowledge of the oil 
lease and did not protest and anyone connected with oil interests 
must go into the discard. President Calvin Coolidge, because he 
had presided in the Senate when the resolution authorizing the 
investigation was considered and because he sat in the Cabinet 
when the transfers were made to the Interior Department and 
the leases were executed, was included in the undesirables. 

Even after McAdoo voluntarily submitted himself to the com- 
mittee for the fullest examination and disclosed that his relations 
with the Doheny companies commenced long after he left public 
office, and that his employment had nothing to do with the leases 
being investigated, and related only to the protection of American 
oil interests in old Mexico that were threatened with confiscation 
by the Mexican government, a service perfectly consistent with the 
policy both of the Democratic and Republican administrations, he 
was rendered unavailable, no matter how honorable the service, 
because the unthinking would not learn the facts, or explanations 
would have to be made in order to remove prejudice. 

At first, McAdoo thought it was too ridiculous for considera- 
tion, for as he stated to the committee when and during the time 
he was attorney for the Doheny companies, they bore an enviable 
reputation and he was never asked or consulted concerning any- 
thing reprehensible, and if he had been he would have saved 
Doheny from his great misfortune. But the very atmosphere was 
so charged with the scandal, and some men who had been his 
supporters were in such doubt, that he, contrary to the advice of 
many of his managers, determined that before he proceeded 
further he must know the wishes of his supporters. This hesitation 
and doubt hurt him badly.™ 

Additionally, A1 Smith got the help of wealth and fell into 
its hands and I suppose it made him. Being in the inner circles 

39 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd I . 


Chapter 7 

of the McAdoo men in 1924, I can say assuredly that McAdoo 
did not have wealth though he did have men of wealth behind 
him, but not “fat fellows” or “ones.” Like Bryan, he was his own 
man, and had he become President, I would have been high in 
his administration. It looked at one time that he was surely going 
to make it. 40 

The Democratic National Committee was in debt in 1924 for 
something just under $500, 000. 41 This indebtedness was one of 
the potent reasons for the convention in 1924 going to New York 
which favored Smith over McAdoo. New York City paid the party 
half a million dollars for it, but even that did not get me off the 
notes. I do not remember for sure, but I believe I had signed in 
1920 notes that were still running in 1924. 

The 1928 Campaign 

In 1928, when A1 Smith was the prospective candidate of the 
party for the Presidency, his representatives came to Utah. A 
meeting was had with them in Ogden at which I figured promi- 
nently in my advocacy of justice to the West in levying a tariff. 
I had talked to A1 about it in New York in 1924 when I was 
fighting him in McAdoo’s interest. He seemed interested but was 
half drunk in his headquarters surrounded with his gang and 
visitors of all kinds, so little was said. He was after people’s votes 
against McAdoo and was not interested in philosophy or political 
policies. 1 ' 

A1 Smith’s leader in this area was a fellow from Rock Springs 
named Fred W. Johnson who is now Commissioner of the Land 
Office in Washington. He presided at the big A1 Smith rally in 
Ogden early in the campaign, being very active there and 
throughout Utah and Wyoming as Al’s leader. In that Ogden 

40 Memorandum dated Oct. 1944, Box 1, fd 2. Smith and McAdoo were the 
leading contenders for the nomination in New York, but neither could make headway 
against the other. The convention consequently turned to a dark horse, John W. 

Davis of West Virginia, who received the nomination after 104 ballots. 

41 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 6. 

42 Memorandum dated Oct. 1944, Box 1, fd 2. Smith’s candidacy in 1928 was 
the greatest trial of Moyle’s loyalty to the Democratic Party. See Gene A. Sessions, 
ed., “A View of James Henry Moyle: His Diaries and Letters,” unpublished manu- 
script, 1974, CLA, pp. 56-67. 


Assistant Secretary from Utah 

meeting I drew up a resolution on the tariff which I am sure 
influenced Smith in his final stand on the issue. The declaration 
was to the effect that the West should participate in the benefits 
and favors of the tariff equally with the East to prevent discrimi- 
nation against the chief products of the West. " 

A Taxonomy of Men 

The Democratic tariff policies of this period were also of 
concern to the Southern leaders, many of whom I knew well. As I 
look back over the Southern politicians and office holders I have 
known, my impression is that they are of a very fine, high type of 
manhood and stature and are devoted to the welfare of the 
country. Like Senator Glass, who is outstanding among them, they 
exhibit at times their human weaknesses, and some do not by any 
means measure up to the standards of the majority and fall far 
below it; but my acquaintance with official Southerners in their 
local capacities as well as in Washington have impressed upon me 
the fact that they are normally a religious-minded type of men, 
though they have unbelievers in the South as elsewhere. They are 
patriotic, hospitable, and are like Westerners rather than New 
Englanders or Easterners, who are more cold, blunt, and more 
devoted to business and money-making. In the North there is less 
religion and more city life than in the South. But I am deeply 
impressed with the superiority of the old type of Christian charac- 
ter, both in the North and South. 

There is much good in men wherever I have been from the 
British Isles to Egypt, Assyria, and Turkey. I admire most, however, 
Northern rather than Southern Europeans. I believe the blood of 
Israel wandered from the Caspian to the Baltic up the Danube, 
down the Rhine, through Russia, Germania, Scandinavia, and the 
British Isles. But all are sons and daughters of a common Father 
with common attributes and destiny. The colder climates, how- 
ever, seem to have developed the hardier and most enduring types. 
See Italy and Spain today to say nothing of Africa. 

Much as I literally hate Hitler and Hitlerism, I cannot help 
admiring the German character and trust there will be no effort 
made to suppress any part of it but that which encourages war and 

43 Undated memorandum. Box 8, fd 6. 


Chapter 7 

the destructive powers of Satan and the hatred of the Jew, which 
is rapidly gaining ground even in this greatest nation of the 
liberty-loving. It is one of the most perplexing conundrums of the 
day to one like myself who devoutly believes in their Abrahamic 
inheritance and promises. When will their miseries end and the 
light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ shine in their lives? 

It may be that because I have been looking for it from 
childhood and want to see it that I believe the time is approaching, 
although it seems afar off, when they will see that light and so li'e 
in and be guided by it, that they will become what they are o 
become a chosen and favored people, and not be known mosty 
for money-making and -retaining qualities. Actually, they seem D 
spend money freely, though I do not know whether they speni 
grudgingly. I have met Jews whom I greatly admire and not a fev 
of them, but am forced to confess that it is hard to resist th; 
temptation to regard them on the whole not as desirable as th: 
average Anglo-Saxon race, notwithstanding all of the good the' 
have done for mankind. May we all have charity for each other an! 
for all men . 44 

44 Memorandum daled Oct. 1944, Box 1, fd 2. See additionally for the period 
of this chapter the following: interview with Evelyn Moyle Nelson by Gene A. Ses- 
sions, 20 June 1974, transcript of twelve pages, CLA, pp. 2-5, 1-12; interview with Sara 
Moyle Creer by Gene A. Sessions, 3 July 1974, transcript of nineteen pages, CLA, pp. 
6-10; interview with James D. Moyle by Gene A. Sessions, 1 1 Aug. 1974, transcript of 
eighteen pages, CLA, pp. 8-11; memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd 2 (Item 5); 
memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd 2 (Item 4); Sessions, “View of James 
Henry Moyle,” pp. 32-67. 


Chapter 8 


A Revelation 

On the organization of the Ensign Stake in 1904 I was made a high 
councilor, which position I occupied until 1931, when with the 
remaining two other original members of the quorum, I was 
released.' That was the extent of my life as a churchman in spite 
of my belief that I had maintained a fearless consistency and 
stability in religion in the face of a violent conflict politically with 
the leadership of the Church. This was not an easy role for a 
Mormon in the period of transition in Utah from a complete union 
of church and politics to a condition of separation of church and 
state. Indeed, that was an accomplishment that many intelligent 
Mormons and most all non-Mormons believed was impossible. For 
example, William N. Williams, prominent in business and devoted 
to the Church, said to me, “I think it was when the Deseret News 
attacked you in a leading editorial that I was afraid your political 
activity would lead you out of the Church.” So even my friends 
regarded my situation and conditions as critical and vital. But 
fortunately I ploughed my furrows straight and without faltering. 
When the smoke and dark clouds of the battle (for it was one 
literally) cleared and the prevailing calm rested on the scene, I 

1 Undated memorandum, 14ox 8, fd 1; James Henry Moyle Collection, Library- 
Archives, Historical Department, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt 
Lake City, hereinafter cited as CLA. All references hereinafter to box and folder (fd) 
are for items from this collection. 


Chapter 8 

appeared worthy religiously to be president of the most prominent 
American mission, the Eastern States. And I was told by President 
Grant that I could remain there as long as I would. I served more 
than four and a half years until President Grant advised me to 
accept the call of President Roosevelt. 2 3 4 Moreover, President Grant 
said to me later that he had suggested to the council the consid- 
eration of my name for Apostle and that the objection raised 
against it was my age. I think that was about 1930. Joseph J. Cannon 
said to me about that time the Deseret News prepared articles on 
prospective possibilities and that I was among them.’ 

At a previously arranged meeting with the First Presidency of 
the Church in the fall of 1928, President Grant stated that they 
would like for me to take charge of the Eastern States Mission. It 
was a very great surprise, but he said he thought that it would be 
a nice way for me to wind up my career. I related the condition of 
my affairs, particularly emphasizing the fact that I had secured a 
credit from the Deseret National Bank of $50,000 for the gas and 
oil business of my two sons, Gilbert andjames; thatjames was very 
recently out of school and Gilbert was only a few years older; that 
Gilbert was very successful in the business, but was inclined to take 
chances and being an exceptionally good salesman had involved 
the company in extensive credits without there having been any 
capital to speak of put into the business; that should they fail it 
would involve a loss to me that would be very serious as my capital 
is limited.' 

After hearing this story, Bishop Nibley said that if he had 
known of the financial liability involved he would not have been 
in favor of my taking the mission. We had quite a discussion, the 
purport of which was that I had always been on hand to be of 
service to the Church and desired to so continue, but as I presented 
facts that indicated that I would be taking great hazards in leaving 
the state, I was strongly impressed with the fact that I was probably 

2 Memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 8, fd 3. 

3 Memorandum dated Aug. 1943, Box 10, fd 2. 

4 Undated memorandum. Box 8, fd 1. See Gene A. Sessions, ed., "A View of 
James Henry Moyle: His Diaries and Letters,” unpublished manuscript, 1974, CLA, 
pp. 130-38. 


Mission President 

making a mistake in being so concerned and that the boys would 
get on all right without me. 

I returned home where the family had gathered for dinner, 1 
think celebrating the anniversary of our wedding. The children 
were all there, excepting Evelyn who was in New York. They all 
insisted, excepting Henry, that I had done enough for the Church 
and was entitled to a rest rather than to take on greatly increased 

On the following Sunday, I attended church and sat on the 
stand. Two young university students were speaking as home 
missionaries from other wards. One of them, to my very great 
surprise, said, “I was never in this building before, but do not feel 
altogether a stranger because James H. Moyle is present.” We had 
never met and I had no idea as to who he was. He continued, 
“Because when my mother was a little girl he brought the Gospel 
to the family and converted her to the Church.” I immediately 
realized that he was a grandson of Henry P. Lindsay, whom I had 
found in North Carolina under unusual circumstances heretofore 
related. He had a fine, lovely wife and some nice children, all of 
whom joined the Church, and he later came to Salt Lake where he 
engaged in business and reared a splendid family. Notable among 
bis granddaughters is the wife of the present Presiding Bishop of 
the Church. The children were all well-married and a great credit 
to the family. I was then more than seventy years old, but my mind 
went back to the scenes of my activity as a missionary in the days 
when to be a Mormon missionary was about as unpopular and 
dangerous a calling as could be found. Joseph Standing had shortly 
before been shot in cold blood in an adjoining state because he 
refused to discontinue teaching the Gospel. He was a young man 
about my age. Then the unusual work of my mission as a boy 
passed through my mind in a sweeping panorama. I thought of 
Brother Lindsay who was a man of more than ordinary intelligence 
and good standing. The family had been so elevated and their 
conditions so improved and their prospect so superior to what they 
were, that the thought flashed through my mind in a most impres- 
sive way that if I, as a boy not yet through with school, could be 
the means of accomplishing so much good, what may I not do now, 
with the broad experience that I had had and the capabilities that 
I had developed. 

It was one of the most impressive evidences to me of inspira- 


Chapter 8 


tion that I had ever enjoyed and I returned the next day t( the 
First Presidency, whom I had left after my previous interview.viih 
the understanding that I would take the matter of the Ealern 
States Mission under consideration and determine what to lo. I 
said to President Grant that I too had had a revelation andwas 
ready to go on to the mission without the slightest doubt tint it 
would prove beneficial and satisfactory to me. I asked how bng 
they would want me to be on the mission and they said, “Oh, two 
or three years,” and I said, “Well, let’s make it two” and the matter 
rested there. 

Eastern States Mission 

I arrived in New York on January 11, 1929. President Henry 
H. Rolapp, with whom I had roomed in college, was vety anxious 
to leave due to appointments that he had made in Los Angeles, 
anticipating that I would have been there a day or two earlier. He 
said that, anticipating my coming, he had arranged for the leading 
missionaries of the mission to be present and that he would like 
for me to meet with them after he had made such explanation as 
he thought desirable of the work he was transferring to me. He 
did that in a vety short time and then we had an interview of about 
two hours with the young men who constituted the leaders of the 
mission, as I remember, eight or ten of them. Judge Rolapp, who 
had already moved from the mission house in Brooklyn to a hotel 
in New York, left me, saying that the secretaiy, Wilbur West, was 
thoroughly familiar with the mission and all its activities and 
believed he could give me any details that I might need. Elder West 
was about twenty years of age and had been in the mission about 
a year. I do not recall the number of missionaries but I think there 
were about 125, but that number soon increased to 165. They were 
scattered from Massachusetts lo the District of Columbia, includ- 
ing all of the states bordering on the Atlantic. As I look back upon 
the activities of the work that was involved, it seems almost 
amazing that a group of such young, inexperienced youths should 
be in charge of the same. 

I had said to the First Presidency in our preliminary inter- 
views that I had visited the branch of the Church in New York 
City ever since my first visit to New York in 1889, and that I was 
somewhat familiar with the character of the meeting places where 

Mission President 

church services were carried on; that they were so far helow my 
ideas of what they should be and it would be one of my primary 
aims to improve them and hoped to have their support, or some- 
thing to that effect. I worked incessantly to accomplish that and 
throughout my entire mission, with the result that I found in the 
mission five meeting places owned by the Church, located in 
Brooklyn, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Palmyra, and Fairview, and 
doubled that number. 

The structure in Brooklyn was appropriate except that it 
lacked classrooms. It consisted of a chapel on the main floor and 
a basement equipped for holding meetings that was also used for 
dancing and entertainments, with few other auxiliary facilities of 
consequence. The building in Philadelphia consisted of one-half 
of a three-story double residential structure. The ground floor was 
used as an auditorium, the floor above for classrooms and Relief 
Society, and the third floor for classrooms and one room for 
missionaries. The auditorium would accommodate about a hun- 
dred people. The building in Baltimore was erected for a church 
and consisted of one room with a gallery and small entrance hall. 
The fourth was located at Palmyra. That building had been used 
by some lodge and was not constructed for religious purposes but 
served our purpose. The fifth was in a village called Fairview, near 
Waynesboro, Pennsylvania, on the Maryland line. It consisted of 
one room with very roughly constructed, irregular walls with 
primitive board benches that were in very bad condition and 
practically no other accommodations. 

My predecessor, Judge Rolapp, had prided himself on the 
amount of tithing that was returned to the Presiding Bishopric. I 
reversed that policy and insisted that the money should be used in 
improving the facilities for holding church services, with the result 
that we spent more than $3,000 on improving, renovating, and 
painting the chapel in Brooklyn. We also spent several thousand 
dollars in enlarging the auditorium at Philadelphia and making of 
the third floor an amusement hall and place of entertainment and 
otherwise materially improving the accommodations." 

In Palmyra we installed an appropriate baptismal font, replac- 

5 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 1. Local officers were given much more lati- 
tude on the disposition of tithing funds in 1929 than they are today. 

Chapter 8 

ing the outdoor cement pool that was constructed in the rtr of 
the barn at the Joseph Smith Farm in Palmyra. We sunk a welhat 
supplied water for shower baths for males in one place and feales 
in another in order that our missionaries, when they vited 
Palmyra, could enjoy these accommodations, as I had deterrned 
there should be a mission conference there each July 24 inele- 
bration of Pioneer Day. The male missionaries did pretty mth all 
of their traveling on the public highway and the accommodions 
in the farm house of the Joseph Smith farm were not sufflciot to 
accommodate any more than the family who occupied it ad the 
officers of the mission, and, in fact, not that much. 1 ' 

Miraculous Evidence 

In Palmyra was Willard W. Bean, the caretaker of the Curch 
properties in the area for more than twenty years. I was impissed 
with the research Bean had done on the early history of Jseph 
Smith and the Church in western New York. He had searchd old 
newspapers, available records, and anything obtainable 01 the 
subject. He discovered that there was no other source of informa- 
tion available to Joseph Smith than the little, rural libray at 
Palmyra, which had nothing much in it but government reiorts. 
It was a land office center. This was the Prophet’s souce of 
information when he organized the Church at the age of tventy- 
four. Considering the Word of Wisdom alone, and all nf its 
advantages as are apparent in my family and the families >f my 
acquaintances, it could not have been anything but miracubus. 

I suffered the normal ailments of childhood, but at mil-life, 
and notably during my forties, I was at a serious disadvantage 
mentally because I suffered greatly from bilious headaches, ivhich 
I think I inherited from my father. He likewise complained of them 
and so far as I remember they were his only serious disability, 
though I remember his taking “dutch drops” for kidney or bladder 
relief. Father was so depressed at times with biliousness that he 
remained home a day or two at a time. But anyway, I remember 
that during my first trip to Los Angeles in 1899, I met the son of 
a stonecutter beside whom I had worked on the temple block. The 
son was then a prominent wholesale liquor dealer, and the family 

Undated memorandum. Box 8, fd 1. 


Mission President 

doctor had advised me to drink dinner wine for relief to my 
stomach trouble I regarded as quite serious. At all events, I would 
have given most anything for relief. So I ordered from this man 
several cases of dinner wines. 

I must admit that I had another inducement to make the 
purchase. I have now both son and son-in-law, fine clean, temper- 
ate living, and generally consistent Latter-day Saints, who are in 
the same state of mind as to the use of liquor that I was at forty. 
Their social relations are almost the same. Their circle consists of 
popular, prominent, socially ambitious, and otherwise temperate 
persons who are caught in the entangling social cocktail web that 
seems to constitute the most bewitching evil of the time, bewitch- 
ing because it is so seemingly innocent if used in moderation but 
so destructive because it is an entering wedge of evil. It leads to 
more sin and social degeneracy than hardcore whiskey drinking, 
because it is more subtle. 

My wife and I were caught in that web but fortunately for only 
a brief period. Our associates were of the most choice social class, 
members of outstanding families— Youngs, Jenningses, Sharps, 
Caineses, et al. Even the charming and most popular non-Mormon 
preacher of the time whose conduct was always decorous and 
highly enlivening belonged to our social circle. That association 
soon demonstrated how impossible it is for Latter-day Saints even 
of the moderate and temperate kind to be liquor drinkers in their 
social contacts. The end for us came when the drinking in one of 
the choicest homes became so hilarious and uproarious and unbe- 
coming (to put it gently) that we concluded it would be our last. 
That association continued for some years after without any very 
fatal results, for all were of a high order mentally, but none were 
elevated by it, and before serious trouble ensued, the group 
dissolved. The minister quit early, and took up a splendid work 
with inebriates that distinguished his long and brilliant career here 
in Utah. 

Of the group whose liquor drinking gatherings we discontin- 
ued when I was about forty, not one of those who continued 
remained members of the Church; most of them became Chris- 
tian Scientists. Contrary to the plea now made that you have to 
drink cocktails in order to retain the friendship and association 
of those who do drink, we were respected after we quit the same 
as before, except that the association was not so active and inti- 


Chapter 8 

mate. The old friends were pleased to attend the parties we gave, 
and Mrs. Moyle was always socially active and loved to entertain 
and be entertained.' 

Building Program 

I persistently urged that an appropriate building should be 
purchased or erected in New York City, and succeeded in obtain- 
ing an appropriation for the same of $250,000. My policy and 
theory was that we should have an appropriate building first in 
New York City and then another in Washington. The membership 
of the Church was so divided in their opinion as to what should 
be done that it seemed very difficult to reconcile the wishes of all 
or any very large number. We secured an option on a four-story 
building on Ninety-fifth Street in New York that could be pur- 
chased for something like $250,000, but which would need exen- 
sive changes and improvements the First Presidency agreed shoild 
be made. Presidents Nibley and Ivins visited New York for the 
purpose of determining whether the building was desirable md 
approved of it, but as soon as word was obtained that the Morrrons 
were going to locate a church in the structure the adjoiring 
neighbors got together and purchased the property to keep us tut. 
Prejudice in those days was very different from what it is mw. 
There would be no trouble about such a matter at present, he 
failure of the membership of the Church to agree on a locaton 
and the desire on the part of so many to have another churchon 
Long Island, one in New Jersey, and another in New York Cty, 
held the matter in suspense until the Presidency concluded to elect 
the building in Washington. President Ivins was particularly entiu- 
siastic about the Church having an appropriate building in Wash- 
ington and showed me, when I accepted the call, a picture of the 
idea that they had of what it should be. It consisted chiefly of the 
central part of the front of the Salt Lake Temple that supports the 
Angel Moroni. The appropriation for the Church in New York was 
consequently transferred to Washington, with the result that the 
chapel there, costing more than half a million dollars, was erected. 

When I left the mission July 19, 1933, to become Roosevelt’s 
Commissioner of Customs, I had just had the privilege of dedicat- 


7 Memorandum dated May 1944, Box 10, fd 6. 

Mission President 

ing the statue of' Moroni that surmounts the Washington Chapel 
at the height of 165 feet above the street. The building was not 
quite complete then, but it was ready for use and was dedicated 
the following November." 

That chapel in Washington was then and still is the most 
beautiful and substantial of all the chapels of the Church. It is built 
of steel and Utah marble surmounted with the life-sized figure of 
the Angel Moroni with his extended bugle gilded in gold. It is 
located on the Avenue of the Presidents (Sixteenth Street) and 
Columbia Road directly north of the entrance to the White House. 
It is now central in Washington’s most popular and choice residen- 
tial North West section adjoining the residences, embassies, and 
legations of the foreign governments. It is near and on the way to 
the main entrance to Washington’s beautiful Rock Creek Park. A 
lady of choice tastes, not a Mormon, who visited the building while 
I was there, said it reminded her of a jewel box. Even shortly after 
its dedication in November of 1933, its auditorium was frequently 
filled and sometimes overflowing. 1 

At New Bedford, Massachusetts, was an old branch of the 
Church that was in very inferior quarters with nothing but a single 
room that had to be used for all purposes. The greater part of the 
members of the branch were weavers from England, and most of 
them were out of work because of the Depression, and in 1930 the 
Church authorized me to spend a sufficient amount to build a neat 
little chapel for them. The excavation and foundation and much 
of the structure were erected with the labor of the members of the 
branch who were out of employment, and some of those who were 
employed worked on the building nights and holidays. At night, 
an arc light was set up and the wives of the working men served 
refreshments. It not only resulted in a nice little church structure 
fitted for the needs of the membership in New Bedford but it 
stirred up great interest and activity on the part of the members 
and impressed many nonmembers in the area. 

At Pittsburgh, we purchased for about $16,000 a very neat, 
well-located and appropriate building with accommodations for 
the auxiliary organizations of the branch. The structure had been 

8 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 1. 

!l Memorandum dated Sept.-Oct. 1 942. Box 9, Id 6. 


Chapter 8 


erected and used by the Swedenborgians. That proved to be a very 
good investment and served to increase interest and activity on the 
part of the members and much greater attendance of nonmem- 
bers. We painted and improved the building and generally fixed 
up the grounds. 

In East Orange, we purchased an old Episcopal church, the 
basement of which was so reconstructed that it provided a good 
amusement hall and place for auxiliary needs. The building was in 
bad condition as the financial affairs of the old church were such 
that they had been unable to keep it up and sold it very cheaply. 1 
do not remember now the amount, but I recall that it was a very 
well-located building. That transaction proved also to be quite a 
success and an attractive addition to the buildings of the Church. 
It was nice, and better than the original five in the mission except 
for Brooklyn. 

At Erie, Pennsylvania, the branch meetings had been held for 
a long time in a public hall, an old, wooden structure with lodge 
accommodation and used principally as such. Due to the Depres- 
sion, that was also a financial loss and I bought it for something 
like $3,000. Sufficient money was then spent on it to put it in good 
condition and to improve the grounds around it until it was made 
comparatively attractive, with ample accommodation for auxiliary 
uses. Again, many out-of-work members did most of the work 

At Buck Valley, in northwestern Maryland, two missionaries 
had done most of the work of constructing a one-room, rustic 
place of meeting, which was furnished and equipped during my 
administration with another room built in addition for the ac- 
commodations of the missionaries located in that locality and as 
an auxiliary association room. It was started before I arrived and 
practically all the work was done by missionaries. It was very rude 
and simple. 

The building at the village near Waynesboro was old and the 
north wall so badly cracked and considered so dangerous that we 
had that wall torn down and replaced, the inside walls resurfaced 
with some sort of manufactured boards and the pioneer benches 
replaced with appropriate chairs, and the structure was very greatly 

At Brooklyn, in addition to spending the $3,000 in improving 

Mission Presiden t 

the condition of the building and increasing its accommodations, 
we purchased for about $ 1 ,500 a large pipe organ from a disman- 
tled church, out of which the musical genius of the branch, a 
German organist named Leski, managed to make a very fine organ 
for the chapel, which was not completed when I left the mission. 

At Baltimore, the church was located in a section that was so 
far taken over by blacks that I deemed it wise to accept $10,000 
for the structure and recommended that it be sold, which was 
done, and I had the money deposited in the National City Bank of 
New York as a trust fund for the members of the Church in 
Baltimore. That constituted the nucleus and beginning of a struc- 
ture costing $35,000 that was constructed after I left the mission. 
Since I left the mission in 1933, so far as I know, no additional 
churches have been purchased or erected, excepting one in Phila- 
delphia and that in Baltimore. I see by the Deseret News (January 8, 
1944), however, that a new church is being erected in Fairview, 

Thus the old structures in the mission were greatly improved 
and the number of churches increased 100 percent during my 
administration. 10 

As president of the Eastern States Mission, I urged the Breth- 
ren to create the stake in New York. To do my part, I created a 
stake organization in every detail and urged its being formalized 
into a stake, which was done shortly after I left the mission. It 
would have been done before but for the Great Depression that 
drove New Yorkers west where they could live more cheaply. 
Apostle George F. Richards was sent to the mission the year 
before 1 left to advise whether the stake should be created and 
he advised postponing the determination of the matter until it 
was certain that the member population in and near New York 
was sufficiently stable to justify it. The members in Washington 
also urged for some time the organization of a stake in Wash- 
ington. Later and to advance the same, they followed the example 
1 set in New York and completed the unauthorized organization 
that only needed that name and seal of approval. ' 1 

10 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 1. 

11 Memorandum dated Sept. -Oct. 1943, Box 10, fd 3. 


Chapter 8 


I had been on a mission fifty years before and was greatly 
surprised to find that the methods of carrying on the propaganda 
work for the Church had not been greatly changed from my early 
experience. House to house canvassing, or “tracting,” was the only 
activity of the missionaries. I was immediately impressed with the 
importance of modernizing the missionary activities and wrote the 
First Presidency urging that if they could give us some time of Dr. 
James E. Talmage or B. H. Roberts, we could do a great work over 
the radio in New York. We had for a beginning one very good 
friend, a Brother Stanley McAllister, the mechanical engineer of 
the Columbia Broadcasting Company, through whom we made 
friends in connection with the work that was then being done by 
the Tabernacle Choir, who opened the way for the enlargement, 
without great cost, of broadcasting over the radio. The authorities 
replied that they could not spare the services of either of the 
gentlemen I wanted. I was so deeply impressed with the impor- 
tance of using the radio that at a conference of our leading 
missionaries I urged them to be on the lookout for opportunities 
of speaking over the radio and said that I was so deeply impressed 
with its importance that if we could not get help from Salt Lake 
we would do the work ourselves. As a result, young Elder Parkin- 
son of Preston, Idaho, a mere boy, secured for a small amount the 
opportunity of delivering an address of the radio at New Bedford, 
Massachusetts. But the real opening came at Wilkes-Barre, Penn- 
sylvania, when D. Glenn Brown of Provo and John M. Anderson 
of Logan secured the permission of the proprietor of the chief of 
two stations there to fill in any vacancy which might occur. 1 think 
Brown was about twenty years of age and both were farmer boys 
of no special education outside of a little, maybe, at the Brigham 
Young Academy and Logan Agricultural College. The young men 
prepared their own addresses, which we supervised, and the 
opportunity soon came in the summer of 1930, and on August 10 
they were given a half hour each Sunday evening, permanently, 
which was utilized during the balance of my missionary work and 
for some time after. During the half hour they sang Mormon 
hymns and delivered a fifteen-minute sermon. That proved such 
a success that the work was extended to Syracuse and Jamestown, 
New York, and then to Wilmington, the principle city of Delaware. 


Mission President 

About that time a like opportunity was given in New Bedford, 
Massachusetts. The work rapidly increased until we had stations 
in those places named and at Altoona, Pennsylvania, and in 
Washington. And when I left the mission, and for a considerable 
time before, we had seven stations going regularly, with scarcely 
any cost to the Church. The musical programs were given by our 
missionaries with some rare exceptions. And before I left the 
mission more than a thousand sermons had been delivered over 
the radio, a work that has not been equalled since. To coordinate 
the work, I called Elder Brown to be Mission Radio Director, and 
he did a splendid work. 

The success with radio convinced me that other forms of 
publicity were necessary. 1 found eight districts in the mission each 
presided over by an elder. I increased the number to twelve and 
had a publicity director appointed in each district and one for the 
mission. The work they accomplished was almost phenomenal in 
getting publicity in the papers. The radio work was the first in 
missionary fields, and I understand ours was the first organized 
effort at mass publicity. There had been some address delivered 
in Los Angeles where a number of Mormons were located and 
where large branches of the Church existed, but no other mission 
had ever undertaken such a program to use the available sources 
of publicity. The radio work was not kept up continuously in all 
the places stated, but where one station was lost others were 
obtained, so that it continually averaged about seven, and was 
seven when I left the mission. One of the very active stations was 
that in Paterson, New jersey, and there were others at Harrisburg, 
Buffalo, and Washington. 

We decided that we should place Mormon exhibitions in the 
various state fairs and expositions in the mission. The first and 
most successful of these was at Springfield, Massachusetts. In the 
main hall we rented a prominent space for $200 and made an 
exhibit there that attracted very great attention and resulted in the 
distribution of several thousand tracts. We found that the Chris- 
tian Scientists had also been successful in using exhibitions. As I 
recall, we had only about two weeks after learning that we could 
have the space to prepare for it. We telegraphed to Salt Lake City 
for literature and publicity material that had been used elsewhere, 
but we were unable to get it. One of the members of the Church 
in Brooklyn, a German mechanical genius, had constructed a 

Chapter 8 

miniature reproduction of the Salt Lake Temple that we had used 
in a celebration at Palmyra. We had that brought down and made 
it the central feature of our display with a large banner over it on 
which we printed: “See What God Hath Wrought.” We covered 
the sides of the space with the best publicity matter we could get, 
reproducing health statistics on Utah and the Mormons to support 
the Word of Wisdom. In the course of a few days we got out a little 
folder containing very pertinent and interesting facts which, with 
the banner and these publications on the side of the room, made 
it sufficiently attractive to lead a great many people to call and 
accept, at least carry away, our tract— people who would not receive 
trading missionaries in their homes. 

Another innovation in publicity was that of using moving 
pictures. Nothing of the kind had been used before in publicity 
(so far as I know) in any mission, with the exception of some 
smoked-glass slides that were very inadequate and not easily han- 
dled. I introduced the use of moving pictures and made a trip to 
Yucatan in February 1931, where my son James took sixteen-milli- 
meter films of the ruins and remains of pre-Columbian structures 
unearthed by archeologists in support of the Book of Mormon. 12 
Mrs. Moyle and my son’s wife also made the trip, and we visited 
Chichen Itza and Uxmal. We were the guests of Dr. Sylvanus G. 
Morley, whom the Carnegie Institute of Washington had kept in 
Central America for many years unearthing old ruins. One of his 
books of a thousand pages describes the ruins at Copan, Guate- 
mala. He had spent ten years there and about the same at Chichen 
Itza, which archeologists claim had a population of probably 
300,000 people before the days of Columbus. Dr. Herbert ). 
Spinden, who had been the professor of Archeology at Harvard 
and was then the Curator of the Museum in Brooklyn, planned 
our trip. He is the author of numerous books on American 
archeology, and he and Morley are probably the two leading 
archeologists of the United States. 1 ' 

12 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 1. These films were subsequently copied 
and given to the Church Historian’s Office by Henry D. Moyle. 

13 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 1. See Morley’s classic, The Ancient Maya, 

3rd ed. (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1947), and Spinden’s major work, 
Ancient Civilizations of Mexico and Central America, 3rd ed. rev. (New York: American 
Museum of Natural History, 1928). See also James D. Moyle, Remembrances (Ogden, 


Mission President 

Excursions to Mexico 

In 1907 I had spent about six weeks in Mexico in company 
with James Chipman, Ira Wines, and my son, Walter. We went 
there primarily for the purpose of considering the advisability of 
purchasing for a syndicate a large tract of land on the Panico River 
about twenty-five miles above Tampico, and incidentally for a 
winter trip vacation. 

We purchased the land for the incorporators of the Utah 
Tropical Fruit Company of which Chipman was president and I 
think I was vice president, at all events a director and attorney. The 
company made extensive improvements on the property in clear- 
ing and planting orchards of citrus fruits and purchased a cattle 
business in that section. Both the fruit trees and cattle did well 
until the rebellion that continued for years and resulted in the 
killing of Madero, the President of Mexico, and the final setting 
up of a new regime. Our cattle and all our improvements were 
destroyed by the warring factions, for which claim was made 
against the Mexican Government. That claim was just settled. 

Chipman looked after the property until about the time of his 
death when it was turned over to the secretary or treasurer of the 
company, Charles Wells; the company was abandoned recently 
when oil was developed near our property and we sold the same 
which reimbursed the stockholders so far as I remember. 

After examining the property, we then visited a number of the 
leading cities of Mexico, especially Mexico City, Vera Cruz, and 
Toledo. While at Toledo we visited ten miles away the great 
pyramid at Cholula that covers forty acres and is about two 
hundred feet high. On its summit is an old Spanish chapel that 
replaced the Aztec temple the invaders found in very active use. 
Cholula was one of the most sacred places in Mexico and believed 
to be the headquarters of the god Quetzalcoatl, sometimes called 
“the feathered serpent,” the feathers representing the air and the 
serpent representing the earth, making it the god of earth and air. 
He was white and had a beard and some of the historians say that 
he corresponded to our Christ. From my research 1 conclude the 
same thing. He taught them the arts of peace and such opposition 
to war that although the people living at Cholula and thereabout 

UT: Weber State College Press, 1982), pp. 140-44. 


Chapter 8 

were highly advanced in civilization and rich they were so opposed 
to war that they became easy victims of the greed of the Spaniards. 
The pyramid is composed of earth and uncut stone, excepting the 
wide stairway that leads to the summit. 

We visited the Pyramid of the Sun in the Valley of Mexico that 
covered about ten acres, was two hundred feet high, and was 
surfaced with stone and cement. At that time but little of the 
pyramid was excavated and it looked like a conical hill with 
shrubbery growing on it, excepting that part that had been uncov- 
ered that consisted chiefly of the entrance and west side where the 
stairway led to the summit. There had been some excavation also 
in front of and near the pyramid that exposed the presence of a 
cement street or highway that, though covered with a foot or two 
of debris and shrubbery, extended out into the valley for miles. 
On the opposite side of the street and very nearby is the Pyramid 
of the Moon that was still unexcavated excepting to a very slight 
extent in 1931. 

Beside this immense street was unearthed the basement of 
buildings that showed a high state of civilization because of the 
fine workmanship and cement that not only covered the floor but 
the sides of the rooms. Nothing remained but the basement or a 
small part of the first story of the building. It was apparent that 
the basement or main floor of the building had a bathroom, which 
appeared from its size and the outlet for the water. 

When we visited the same place in 1931, the Pyramid of the 
Sun was completely uncovered and a tunnel run into its center that 
disclosed that the interior of the Pyramid was earth and the debris 
of the vicinity. 

In 1931 we found what did not appear in 1907, namely the 
remains of the Temple of Quetzalcoatl, evidently an immense 
structure as the foundations covered many acres, all of which were 
covered over with a deep deposit of accumulated debris in 1907. 

In 1931 we spent a week at Mexico City. Mrs. Moyle and I were 
entertained at the Embassy byj. Reuben Clark, Jr., the American 
Ambassador. It is one of the best in the Foreign Service. Clark was 
entertaining at the same time Thomas S. Gates, President of the 
University of Pennsylvania, and his wife. He took us all, with fames 
and Louise (Mrs. James D. Moyle), to Cuernevaca. His predeces- 
sor, Dwight Morrow, owned a beautiful villa there, the use of which 


Mission President 

he had turned over to Clark. We were entertained there and took 
moving pictures of the same, also of the pyramid outside of 
Cuernevaca and other places we visited in Mexico and Yucatan. 

We also visited the archeological ruins nearer to Mexico City. 
I was greatly interested in the Temple or Pyramid of the Serpent 
in the suburbs of Mexico City. That was not excavated when I was 
in Mexico before. It is surrounded at the base by large, flat stones 
on which is an upraised carving of serpents, one after the other all 
around it. Pictures were taken of it. Out of the city a short distance 
an ancient village had been covered with lava under which was 
found the bones of a number of human beings that were well 
preserved. That also was a new excavation. 

We went from New York to Havana and from there to Pro- 
greso, the main port in Yucatan. A strong south wind was blowing 
the water from the south shore making the water too shallow for 
the tender to leave the dock. As a result, we had to remain on the 
steamer several miles out in the Gulf for about a day and night 
while the considerable though not severe wind subsided. 14 

From Progreso we went to Merida, the capital of Yucatan, a 
city of about 100,000 people. It was built by the Spaniards soon 
after the conquest of the country and is occupied largely by the 
Spanish population of the peninsula, a very attractive city with a 
most interesting public market. The hotels are old and built after 
styles that are so different from those common to civilization now 
that they were very interesting. We had large, high-ceilinged rooms 
with highly-ornamented woodwork and tile floors, with toilet and 
bath in a large room built for sleeping or living quarters. 

From Merida we made the trip by train and motor car to Muna, 
and from there in Ford cars to Uxmal (pronounced “Ushmal”). All 
of the few railroads in Yucatan are narrow-gauged, but the one to 
Muna was the crudest I ever saw. Additionally, Yucatan had no rail 
or passable road to the other states in Mexico. 

The most impressive sight we witnessed on the entire trip 
occurred as we approached Uxmal. The very narrow road for 
several miles is through what they call the “bush,” which is densely 
timbered country with heavy underbrush. There suddenly came 

14 Memorandum dated Feb. 1936, Box 15, fd 3. James D. Moyle made some mi- 
nor corrections of detail in this paragraph after reading his father’s version. 


Chapter 8 

into view the top of the Pyramid of the Dwarf, which we soon 
reached. It was extremely impressive because of the manifest 
antiquity of the pyramid and the sudden change from a vast area 
of wilderness to bush and what was evidently a magnificent center 
of a highly civilized people. The pyramid probably does not cover 
more than an acre, is built entirely of stone, and reaches a height 
of about 150 feet. It is surmounted by a shrine or small temple or 
place of worship. 

The long rows of wide stone steps leading to the top are very 
steep. For that reason a heavy rope was stretched from the top to 
the bottom with which visitors would protect themselves from 
falling. Not very far away are very extensive remains of what is 
called the nunnery because of the large court and the buildings 
surrounding the same with single rooms and nothing but a door 
entering the same. Then we saw a great number of remains of 
temples and structures of various kinds that had not been exca- 
vated to any extent, so we saw them in their native condition. Most 
of the structures were partially fallen and considerable portions of 
the pyramid had broken away leaving the surface rough and too 
steep for very much debris to collect on its sides. 1 " 

Our next trip was in another direction from Merida to 
Chichen Itza where the Carnegie Institute of Washington, under 
the direction of Dr. Morley, had kept a large force of men working 
for years uncovering some of the ruins. It is estimated that the city 
originally had about a quarter of a million residents. The ruins are 
extended over a very large area. 

My son James took good moving pictures of many of the 
leading ruins and tried to take pictures of the Sacred Well, which 
were not very satisfactory because of the practical impossibility of 
showing the well in pictures except if they were made by an expeit. 
The book describing the Sacred Well, by Thompson, is as interest- 
ing as most any novel although he undertakes to present the facs 
as tradition and available writings describe. 

The well is probably one hundred or one hundred fifty feet it 
diameter and about sixty feet to the water, with all but perpendici- 
lar walls except in one place where you enter, which is also ver/ 
steep. According to Thompson, they sacrificed the most beautifd 


15 Memorandum dated Feb. 1936, Box 15, fd 3. 

Mission President 

maidens to (heir rain god in times of drought and suffering in 
order to appease the wrath of the god. She was treated for a 
considerable time with great honor and attention but finally 
thrown into the well where she perished. They also threw into the 
well much of the most valuable of their jewelry as a sacrifice. 
Thompson acquired the property and sold it to the Institute. 
Because of the belief in the history of the well, he had the well 
dredged in the hope of acquiring valuable relics but, while he 
found some, they were not as numerous or valuable as he ex- 

The Carnegie Institute has acquired title to a large amount 
of country, including the remains of the entire city. No one is 
living in any of these ancient ruins. The natives do not know 
anything about who built them or what became of the great 
civilization that antedated their time. The people generally live 
in thatched huts. The Mayans were the most highly civilized of 
the ancient inhabitants but those that were left were so abused 
and misused that, as a rule, they are very poor and live in the 
most primitive way. Yet they have the appearance of being de- 
scendants of a well-civilized people. 

While at Mexico City, my son James and I went to Oaxaca, an 
all-day trip on a very slow railroad through a mountainous, barren 
country where we passed through something like a forest of cactus. 
The small train and few passengers were protected by a consider- 
able group of armed soldiers. 

We arrived in Oaxaca a few days after an earthquake had 
demolished some buildings and badly cracked the principal hotel 
where we were lodged. It also had badly shaken and cracked the 
cathedral and a church, as well as a number of business houses. 
The debris from the fallen building still clogged traffic on the 

We visited Monte Albans (to which a fine road had just been 
built by the Mexican Government), the ancient ruins on the top 
of a mountain where there had evidently lived a large population. 
The ruins had not been excavated but some of them have since, 
yielding a great quantity of valuable relics, particularly in jewelry. 

We also went to Mitla where the excavated ruins disclosed the 

"’Undated memorandum. Box 8, fd 1. 


Chapter 8 

lower part of a massive ancient temple with splendid, well-cut 
columns, fine carvings, and paintings. Most interesting of all to me 
were the floors and courtyards made of fine cement work that, 
prior to excavation, had been covered with a deep deposit of the 
accumulated debris of the ages. Some of the cut stones in the 
building were twelve or fourteen feet long and two or three feet 
square, just how they were cut and put in position would be 
interesting information. Some of the walls slill standing are highly 
ornamented with colored mosaics. The trip to Mitla was by auto- 
mobile. On the way we stopped at where there was an immense 
old tree history and tradition say sheltered Cortez and many of his 
soldiers. It is my recollection that it was either thirty-five feet or 
thirty-five steps around the trunk of the tree, the foliage of which 
was very dense. 

The Joy of Service 

I always enjoyed good health, which continued with me 
through my mission and enabled me to perform the arduous 
duties of presiding over a large mission in which I kept up all of 
its activities as fully as if I had been a much younger man. I 
introduced into the mission immediately orderly conduct and 
business methods, providing when missionaries should get up, 
breakfast, commence their prayers and study class of three-quar- 
ters of an hour daily, when to commence and continue daily 
trading, and so on. An important innovation in the Eastern States 
was the introduction in 1929 and for the first time the requirement 
of keeping track of missionary trading, and providing every mis- 
sionary with the appropriate book in which to record the streets 
and locality traded, number of times tracted, when, and by whom. 
That book was called “The Trading Book,” and another the 
“Prospective Investigators Book.” By means of these, for the first 
time in the mission succeeding missionaries were advised where, 
when, and by whom work was done before them in a particular 
area. This continued to be a marked success. 1 ' 

I was really happy during my four and a half years as mission 
president, and a similar experience I am certain would give anyone 
much of a new outlook on life. Where one is wholly and solely 


17 Memorandum dated Feb. 1936, Box 15, fd 3. 

Mission President 

absorbed in the work, lie gets an inspiration and knowledge out 
of it that I am certain is not obtained in any other way. There is 
something in Mormonism that is deeper and more profound than 
anything else that comes to a man in this life. I was sorry to have 
discovered this so late, though I had always given the Church some 
measure of attention. 18 

Governor Roosevelt 

While I was in New York and as my time would allow, I 
continued to work in my capacity as Democratic National Commit- 
teeman. I was extremely happy with the nomination of Governor 
Franklin D. Roosevelt for the Presidency, notwithstanding some 
of his views such as the ending of prohibition that were difficult 
for me. 1 always saw in him my ideal of a cultured, intelligent 
gentleman, a clean-looking, clean-living family man, father of an 
unusually large and fine family, though he is not without some 
serious faults, but who does not have them? He is a man of fine 
moral and religious instincts— he said to me when he was governor 
and when national prohibition was a prominent issue, “Moyle, you 
and I see that matter alike, but we must treat it in a practical way.” 
While he smoked and indulged in liquor largely in a social but 
moderate way, he was essentially a temperance man so far as I 
know or believe. I never heard of his being intoxicated, though I 
presume he may have been made very jolly if not hilarious at times. 
But I will warrant that at all times he conducted himself in a 
gentlemanly way as that term is generally understood. 

Until after he became an active candidate for the Presidency, 
1 did not regard him in any sense as a superman, though I knew 
he had some of the qualities of one, especially in his social relations 
and dealings with men. I merely regarded him as otherwise a young 
man of ordinary standing among the leaders of the nation, who 
had had unusual and superior advantages in life in the develop- 
ment of his intellectual and social sphere. It was not until he 

,8 James H. Moyle to Ezra C. Rich, 15 Jan. 1931. See additionally for the mis- 
sion presidency period the following: interview with Evelyn Moyle Nelson by Gene A. 
Sessions, 20 June 1974, transcript of twelve pages, CLA, p. 9; interview with Sara 
Moyle Creer, 3 July 1974, transcript of nineteen pages, CLA, pp. 10, 15-19; interview 
with James D. Moyle by Gene A. Sessions, 1 1 Aug. 1974, transcript of eighteen pages, 
CLA, pp. 7-11; Sessions, “View of James Henry Moyle,” pp. 68-89. 


Chapter 8 

unfolded at the beginning of his first campaign for the Presidency 
his national policies that I recognized that in him was something 
unusual and outstanding. That was climaxed in my mind when he 
so aptly illustrated his sympathy for mankind in his first campaign 
speech when he said he was more interested in the base of the 
social pyramid than its apex; that the base should be nurtured 
directly rather than let the benefits of government find its way to 
them by percolating through the apex and on downward. My later 
acquaintance led me to sympathize and admire him even more 
genuinely. 1 1 

Assessing Utah for the Next President 

Early in his campaign (after the nomination), he asked me for 
information on Utah and the Church and my political assessment 
of Democracy’s chances in the state. Happily, I prepared the 
following memorandum I submitted to him August 29, 1932; 

“The tariff bills enacted under both Cleveland and Wilson 
administrations placed practically every product of Utah and the 
far-western states on the ‘Free List,’ and compelled the West to 
pay a substantial tariff on most of the products of the East. It is my 
recollection that the Cleveland Tariff produced a revenue of about 
a quarter of a billion dollars per year. This more than anything else 
made the West Republican and Utah in particular. 

“I am glad you are going to Utah; you may be interested in 
knowing that practically all of the original Mormon leaders were 
Democrats from New England, New York, New Jersey, and Penn- 
sylvania. Daniel H. Wells, who was converted in Illinois just before 
the migration to the Rockies, was the only Whig among the 

“We had no national parties in Utah until early in the 1890s. 
Up to that time the two parties were pro- and anti-Mormon. The 
anti-Mormon party leadership consisted chiefly of Republican 
‘carpetbaggers’ and their followers. It was not until in the 1880s 
that they made much of a showing at the polls. Every delegate to 
Congress, down to the organization of the national parties in Utah 
early in the 1890s when national politics became an issue were 
Mormon Democrats who always sat on the Democratic side and 


19 Memorandum dated Apr., Oct. 1942, Box 9, fd 5. 

Mission President 

voted with the Democrats and were known only as such. No 
member of the anti-Mormon party had any chance in territorial or 
county elections until 1890. 

“States rights— the right to self-government, for which the 
people pled and appealed to Congress repeatedly— was always 
denied until we had a Democratic Congress in 1895. The Repub- 
licans previously knew Utah would be Democratic. Even when 
Nevada and Wyoming were given statehood, each having less 
population than Salt Lake City, and very little wealth outside of 
mining and ranching and the Pacific railroads which also passed 
through Utah. 

“Brigham Young, and all of his successors down to Joseph F. 
Smith, who preceded President Grant, were Democrats. The latter 
will undoubtedly vote for Senator Smoot, but for a Democratic 
governor and Congressman, unless our prohibition plank prevents 
him from so doing. His counselor, Anthony W. Ivins, is a very able 
and potential factor in the affairs of Utah. He has always been a 
very fine and loyal Democrat, and by the way is not friendly to 
Senator Smoot politically and I don’t think he has ever voted for 
him or advocated his election. President Grant and Ivins are first 
cousins. His (Ivins) people are from New Jersey. Mayor Ivins of 
New York was a first cousin. I thought you might like to know some 
of these things, as you are likely to meet him. When you go to Utah, 
you may have an opportunity of telling him of your pleasure in 
knowing something of his immovable devotion to Democracy. 

“Brigham Young was very practical and encouraged all kinds 
of home industries including manufacturing. He himself was 
engaged in it and was a prime leader in it. His slogan was ‘Support 
Home Industry.’ Brigham Young advocated the support of home 
industry so much and so strongly that it was easy for the Republi- 
cans to take that as a battle cry and apply it to national manufac- 
tures as well as local, and likewise the maintenance of a home 
market. That coupled with the manifest discrimination of the 
Cleveland Tariff against practically all of our Utah industries, 
together with the action of the leaders of the Church in seeking to 
effect a real division on national party lines, resulted in a strong 
movement to build up a Republican Party, notwithstanding the 
fact that the local Republicans had been so generally anti-Mormon. 
Thus the Republicans became dominant. Nothing but the Mor- 
mon leaders and the tariff could have effected that result. In my 

Chapter 8 

opinion we would probably have held Utah notwithstanding the 
Mormon leadership but for the tariff. 

“President Joseph F. Smith was a strong Republican. The 
activity of the leaders of the Church in the interest of the Repub- 
lican Party was justified on the ground that many of the people did 
not really know whether they were Democrats or not on the issues 
other than the right to self-government. That question was settled 
in 1895 when statehood was secured. If the Mormon leaders had 
not stemmed the tide or broken up the movement which was 
carrying the Mormons generally into the Democratic Party, when 
division on national party lines occurred, it would have resulted in 
the old fight over again, under the new name, Mormons as 
Democracy and non-Mormons as Republicans. That movement 
was carried on until the overwhelming Democratic majority be- 
came a minority, and put Utah in the Vermont class. Ever since 
the Utah and Vermont episode, Democracy has been on the 
up-grade in Utah. The people are getting back to their first love. 

“What the declaration in favor of the repeal of the Eighteenth 
Amendment will do is a very serious question, as the leaders of the 
Mormon Church are practically a unit in favor of prohibition. The 
orthodox Church leaders generally are with them. Temperance is 
one of the most conspicuous teachings of the Mormon Church. 

“I think I can speak with a longer, and more intimate acquain- 
tance, with the tariff issue in Utah than any other Democrat. I have 
made more of a study of that subject than any of them and have 
kept in such close contact with it, that when the Underwood Bill 
was under consideration I contributed my services gratis and 
worked intimately for a week or more with Senator Walsh, of 
Montana, to induce the Democratic Congress to give the West a 
square deal. That was all we asked. Senator Underwood was fully 
converted and declared that he was with us but he said the 
President had yielded on a number of things, but was adamant in 
his determination to place our products on the free list, as raw 
materials, no matter how much they were manufactured. That, of 
course, included sugar, lead, wool, meat, mining, and agriculture 

“My Democracy was so strong that I have always stayed with 
my party and worked consistently in its interests, but I did say to 
262 Mr. Underwood and others that I never again would support 

Mission President 

measures that were calculated to make ‘hewers of wood and 
carriers of water’ out of Westerners for the benefit of eastern 

“Five years ago when the movement was on to nominate 
Governor Smith, whom I opposed, I was invited to meet with the 
gatherings in his interest, particularly in Ogden, Utah. There I 
proposed what was extended somewhat in a movement to demand 
a fair tariff on western products, if we were going to have a tariff 
on eastern products. That was brought to the attention of Gover- 
nor Smith. His declarations on the subject in favor of justice to all 
sections of the country, etc., made it much easier, than would 
otherwise have been the case, to support him. I strongly commend 
Governor Smith's declaration on that subject to your favorable 

“Though personal, and in justification of what I am saying 
concerning myself and the appeal I make, and possibly some 
vanity, 1 will take the liberty of letting you know that as a student 
at Ann Arbor I attended every minute of the convention that first 
nominated Cleveland, and I have attended most of them since, and 
taken part in all of the campaigns. As State Chairman I conducted 
two very successful campaigns in Utah in the 1890s, and when the 
party was languishing in the depths of defeat and despair, I again 
accepted the chairmanship in 1910, when we did not control a 
county in the State, and had but two members in the legislature, 
and none in the senate. That campaign resulted in our carrying a 
number of counties and we have been on the upgrade ever since. 
I was the Democratic candidate for governor in 1900 and 1904 and 
came nearly defeating Senator Smoot for the Senate in 1914. If 
you get next to President Ivins, who has been a close political 
observer and very much interested, he is liable to tell you what he 
has told me, that I actually defeated Senator Smoot in 1914, when 
he was believed to be invincible. 

“I refer to these things because I am ever anxious possibly to 
impress on you, not only in this campaign but when you become 
President, the fact that the West is entitled to a square deal on the 
tariff, which it has never had under a Democratic administration. 

“For fear that you might think I have some personal interest 
to serve, I am pleased to say that I never was a candidate for an 
appointment either state or federal and do not expect to be. My 
position in the Treasury Department was not only unsought but 


Chapter 8 

accepted with some reluctance, and not until the President urged 
it upon me, in an appealing telegram. I do, however, want to assist 
you now, and to be of service to Utah when you are President .” 20 

As I was soon to learn, the new President took my offer in that 
last sentence literally . 21 

20 “Memorandum, prepared by James H. Moyle, at the Request of Gov. 
Roosevelt, August 29, 1932,” Box 1, fd 8. 

21 See below, chap. 9. 


Chapter 9 


/Editor’s Note: Shortly after the inauguration of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 
March 1933, the new president requested that Moyle visit him in the White House. 
Following a lengthy personal interview, the president asked Moyle to join the 
administration and sent him to see fames A. Farley, Postmaster General and 
dispenser of patronage. Farley persuaded the seventy-five-year-old Utahn to head 
the Customs Bureau as Commissioner of Customs. Following consultation with 
Mormon leaders, Moyle moved from New York to Washington and directly from 
his mission presidency into renewed government service.] 

Something of which I will always be proud and which is 
extremely gratifying is President Roosevelt’s high regard and 
respect for me. I say that in humility, but I had several evidences 
of it. For example. Tariff Commissioner Edgar Brossard of Utah 
wrote to me in 1938 the following letter that demonstrates the 
source of my pride and also tells an interesting story about the 
origins of our wide streets in Salt Lake City: 

“I had a forty-five minute visit with President Roosevelt yester- 
day. He was very warm, friendly, and cordial, and we had a very 
good visit. He would not let anyone interrupt us. Several times 
when one of his secretaries or someone started to come through 
the door he motioned them out and told them to wait a few 
minutes. We discussed many topics and persons. In the course of 
our discussion he brought up your name. He said, ‘You know, 
Judge James H. Moyle is another grand Utahn. He is a good 
personal friend of mine. I like him immensely. He was Assistant 
Secretary of the Treasury in President Wilson’s time when I was 


Chapter 9 

Assistant Secretary of the Navy. I got to know him well. He is a 
wonderful character.’ 

“He brought up the question of the Mormon Church. Among 
many other complimentary things he said about the Church was 
this: ‘You know, the Mormon Church is one of the finest— the finest 
organizations we have in the United States. It has done a wonderful 
piece of work for its members.’ He then went on to tell me how 
Salt Lake City came to have such wide streets and told me the same 
story, I think, that he told you. He said that his fourth cousin, James 
Roosevelt, then an old man, met him in Georgia one day and told 
him the story about how two young Mormon converts from Florida 
were going horseback to join the Mormon pioneers in Illinois to 
cross the desert with them to Salt Lake. They stopped in Macon. 
While there the hotel with the stables and everything where they 
stayed burned up destroying their horses and all their possessions. 
They had to stay and work to get additional horses and clothes. 
While they were in Macon the city, after this big fire which had 
almost entirely destroyed it, was being rebuilt. They decided to 
build the streets wide enough so that another time the flames could 
not jump across the street from building to building so they made 
the streets two hundred feet wide. These two young converts 
continued on their journey to Nauvoo and thence to Salt Lake with 
the Brigham Young party. When they were laying out Salt Lake 
City the plans called for streets like in other New England towns— 
no wider. These two young men thought they should tell Brigham 
Young what had happened in Macon, Georgia, and how they 
profited by it and laid out the new city with streets two hundred 
feet wide. Brigham Young thought the idea was a good one and 
changed the plans adopting the wide streets as in Macon, and that 
is how Salt Lake City came to have unusually wide streets which is 
the comment of everybody who visits there now that the automo- 
bile is in such popular use. The President agreed that it was a good 
historical fact if true and he said his fourth cousin, James 
Roosevelt, told it to him as a fact .” 1 

1 Edgar B. Brossard to James H. Moyle, 9 June 1938, Box 3, fd 5; James Henry 
Moyle Collection, Library-Archives, Historical Department, Church of Jesus Christ of 
Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, hereinafter cited as CLA. All references hereinafter 
to box and folder (fd) are for items from this collection. 


New Dealer 

Commissioner of Customs 

With the President’s manifest confidence, I entered upon my 
duties as Commissioner of Customs with an eye for reform and 
efficiency. On my first visit to a port, namely Boston, in 1933, I 
discovered that the clean content of wool was determined by 
examiners’ estimates. 1 consequently installed in 1934 a wool 
scouring plant in the appraiser’s store in New York at a cost of 
$5,568 for scientifically ascertaining the clean content of wool, that 
being the basis upon which the tariff is collected. It was the first 
scientific or mechanical method of determining the clean content 
of wool used by the government of any country. This plant 
removed substantially the element of uncertainty in contested 
cases. The plant being novel and in the nature of an experiment 
to determine the practicability of improving the method of ascer- 
taining the clean content of wool and checking on examiners’ 
estimates, the expense was kept at a minimum. After an extended 
investigation of the subject by a Mr. Ballinger, the Treasury effi- 
ciency expert, I recommended in 1938 an enlargement of the plant 
to a cost of $50,000 if necessary in order that all samples might be 
tested and not merely those contested. Dr. Wollner is now making 
an exhaustive study of the subject and proposes further develop- 
ments including a scientific method of securing samples of wool 
to be tested. 

On December 24, 1934, I reported to Assistant Secretary 
Gibbons die gross lack of supervision in the examination of 
tobacco and substantial losses sustained by the too frequent clas- 
sification of wrapper tobacco as filler tobacco which is imported 
in bales, with the two classes of tobacco indiscriminately intermin- 
gled. Filler tobacco then paid a duty of 35 cents a pound, and 
wrapper tobacco $2,275. Now, under the treaty with Cuba, the 
duty is reduced on filler tobacco to 17 1/2 cents and wrapper 
tobacco, $1.50 a pound. A survey I had made showed variations of 
from 1 to 30 percent on returns of wrapper tobacco by different 

I found that there was practically no direct personal supervi- 
sion of examiners at the different ports. Samples of tobacco were 
submitted to the supervising examiner at New York City. He is and 
has been in very poor health. Other important duties chiefly, but 
also his health, compelled him to remain in New York. 


Chapter 9 

I therefore recommended in December 1934 that Mr. Zeliff 
be appointed supervising tobacco examiner and that he speid 
such time as might be necessary, authorized by the Commission-r, 
in visiting various tobacco ports, instructing examiners, seeing tlat 
the regulations were followed and the revenue protected, and tlat 
the remainder of his time be devoted to his regular duties at 
Tampa, Florida. Zeluff was of the opinion that he should carry *n 
his duties previously performed, and at the same time make strh 
visits of inspection as would be necessary. That recommendatim 
has not been approved so far, but should be. 

The lack of close supervision of field officers was early in- 
pressed upon me in another way when the port and bureau officers 
recommended, and the district attorney at San Francisco inftr- 
mally approved, the acceptance of $47,000 in settlement of tie 
Government’s claim in connection with excessive refunds paid m 
tomatoes alleged to have been spoiled and abandoned. Not beiig 
satisfied, I made a personal investigation of the matter at Sat 
Francisco and with the cooperation of the district attorney aid 
local customs officers we succeeded in having the offer increased 
to $108,634. As a result of my investigation a deputy collector n 
charge, who was an old and honored officer and who had been a 
candidate for the assistant collectorship, was demoted to inspec- 
tor, one inspector was demoted to laborer, and two inspector 
were suspended. This disciplinary action placed the inspectien 
force at San Francisco on a much higher plane. That acticn 
resulted in reducing the amount of such refunds of tariff paid cn 
spoiled tomatoes imported at San Francisco from around 30 
percent of the duty paid to less than 1 percent, which exposed tie 
enormity of the fraud that had been previously carried on. 

When the Baylor cattle case from Eagle Pass in the El Paso, 
Texas, District arose in the Bureau, April 26, 1934, 1 discovered 
that we did not have cattle scales there and at a number of other 
cattle ports. Then I also discovered that the importer’s invoices 
were very generally accepted and no business-like effort was made 
to determine the exact weights. The Baylor importation was or- 
dered weighed at an interior port, disclosing that the loss of duty 
on the one shipment was more than sufficient to pay for two 
adequate scales where only one was needed. I had scales promptly 
installed at a number of ports, and that policy was followed where 
268 needed ever since. 

New Dealer 

On December 28, 1934, 1 called the Department’s attention to 
the fact that there was no centralized and active supervision of 
appraising activities generally and recommended the separation 
of appraiser. This recommendation was approved in June, 1937, 
two-and-one-half years later, and the present organization is con- 
sidered an outstanding accomplishment. 

Appreciating the fact that closer supervision of the field force 
was needed, I formally recommended on January 25, 1935, that 
four customs agents-at-large be appointed to serve under the 
immediate direction of the Commissioner to operate as his “eyes 
and ears” in the field with a view of increasing efficiency, economy, 
and administrative effectiveness, their work to be supplemental to 
the port examiner’s work. This recommendation was orally re- 
newed repeatedly but was not approved until June 1939, more than 
four years later, when the Secretary directed that nine liaison 
officers be appointed including the port examiners to operate, as 
1 had recommended, as the eyes and ears of the Commissioner in 
the field. The reason it took four years for my suggestion to go 
through was due to the fear that it would cost more than the 
reform was worth. 

For a year and a half I persisted in urging establishment of a 
customs correspondence school for the purpose of educating and 
training customs officers for their duties. The establishment of the 
school was finally approved in 1935 and is now an outstanding 
success commended by all. 

During a trip to Europe in the spring of 1936, 1 found that our 
foreign offices were operated independently of each other with no 
official contact between them or supervision over them except 
from Washington. On July 1, 1936, I recommended that Treasury 
Attache Wait at Paris be assigned the duty to inspect or visit and 
advise with the chiefs of the other offices as to their problems and 
methods of doing business once a year or whenever he deemed it 
advisable. Immediately following my report on the subject, the 
Secretary enlarged upon the plan suggested, appointed Treasury 
Attache Wait in charge of the European offices, designating him 
supervising Treasury Attache and giving him supervisory powers 
over all the offices. That is what 1 wanted and recommended orally. 
All of the offices in Europe were opposed to the idea, so I made 


Chapter 9 

my recommendation to the Secretary personally to insure some- 
thing being done without too much bureaucratic complaining. 

In the same report I pointed out that our foreign repre- 
sentatives had been directed to report to and act in narcotics 
matters only under the direction of the Narcotics Bureau, with the 
result that there was a great lack of initiative and activity on the 
part of our foreign customs representatives in that connection. I 
saw that if greater responsibility and freedom of action were placed 
on our customs officers it would result in their greater activity in 
narcotics cases and a more efficient prosecution of those engaged 
in the illicit traffic. I merely submitted the facts, however, stating 
that I did not feel free to make any recommendation on the subject 
as it was a problem involving two bureaus of the Treasury Depart- 
ment and another department of the Government. Soon after the 
submission of this report the narcotics work in Europe was trans- 
ferred from the Narcotics Bureau to the Customs Bureau. 

In the course of my visits to the customs ports I discovered 
that there was no orderly policy for providing understudies to 
important positions in the service and that promotions were made 
on seniority where men were fairly well qualified. This not infre- 
quently resulted, as I first discovered at New Orleans, in important 
positions being filled by employees approaching retirement age. 
On November 9, 1935, I issued a circular letter directing all field 
officers to select and forward to the Bureau for consideration the 
names of understudies for key positions for any vacancies that 
might arise due to retirement or dismissals. 

My observation of the independence of each European office 
and complete lack of supervision was a continuation of the obser- 
vations I made and expressed when I visited the border ports from 
Lake Superior to Idaho in the summer of 1935 and learned that 
there was no connecting link between the customs districts or 
supervision over them except from Washington and such occa- 
sional visits as were made by customs agents without any recog- 
nized effort at coordinating the work, particularly with respect to 
preventing the smuggling of narcotics from the Orient through 
Pacific Coast ports. At the close of this inspection trip at Great 
Falls, Montana, I met Agent Bailey who had recently completed a 
survey of the port of San Francisco with a view of reorganizing the 
outside force to insure a more effective enforcement of the smug- 
gling laws. At that interview we agreed that greater efficiency 


New Dealer 

would result if there were a coordination of activities of all the 
Pacific Coast ports. Upon my return to Washington, I discussed 
this matter with other Bureau officers and on October 9, 1935, I 
authorized Agent Bailey to make a survey of the Pacific Coast ports 
and to submit recommendations which would in his opinion result 
in a more effective policy of unified enforcement along the Pacific 
Coast. This survey was completed on January 26, 1926, and a 
report submitted thereon dated March 3, 1936. 

Duringjuly 1936, Agent Bailey was directed to take charge of 
the activities on the Pacific Coast in the capacity of chief intelli- 
gence officer and advisor to the various collectors of customs. 
Subsequently, a plan of coordination to prevent narcotics smug- 
gling was also set up on the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. This 
coordination work has greatly minimized smuggling. 

In my report in February 1937, 1 called attention to an anoma- 
lous condition existing in the Customs Bureau. I estimated that 
more than 75 percent of the work of the legal unit performed 
under the direction of the general counsel of the Department was 
in fact administrative. Ballinger’s committee found later on a more 
complete investigation that it was about 85 percent. On March 16, 
1939, two years later, the chief counsel and about 85 percent of 
the attorneys were transferred from the Office of the General 
Counsel of the Department to the Customs Bureau, and the 
Division of Tariff Administration was established with the chief 
counsel in charge as a deputy commissioner of customs. 

During my trip on the northern border in the summer of 1935 
I discovered the desirability of pistol matches to better qualify our 
men for enforcement work. I returned to Washington enthusias- 
tically advocating in the Bureau the need for these matches and 
was advised that there was no money that could be used for that 
purpose. Later Secretary Morgenthau learned of the situation 
(from whom I do not know) and became much interested and 
found the money for this purpose, much to the credit of his 

I persistently urged that the $100 exemption accorded travel- 
ers returning from Canada be restricted to those who had re- 
mained in Canada at least 48 hours. This restriction was written 
into the Customs Administrative Act of 1938. 

In April and July, 1936, 1 recommended that Treasury attaches 


Chapter 9 

be given diplomatic status to assist them in the prosecution of their 
work. I took this matter up with the American Ambassadors at 
Paris, London, Berlin, and Vienna, and enlisted their aid. There- 
after, additional privileges were accorded our foreign repre- 

I made, as had never been done before by any Bureau officer, 
a personal inspection of all border ports and stations resulting in 
obtaining a more intimate acquaintance with the officers in remote 
places and making needed changes and effecting economies, 
including abolishing a number of unnecessary stations on the 
border, and other activities which have benefited the bureau, 
notably the establishment of greater uniformity of action in impos- 
ing penalties and greater attention being given generally to cases 
involving failure of travelers to report when crossing the border. 
I discovered that heavy or very slight penalties were imposed in 
one district, while the opposite occurred in other districts for 
identically the same offense. I consequently enlisted the aid of the 
Canadian Commissioner of Customs in the latter regard with the 
result that Canadian officers have been directed to advise travelers 
that it is necessary to report on the American side. 1 authorized 
installation of more appropriate signs and notices of requirement 
to report and the most effective of all the placing of red lights over 
the roads at the active stations. The chief excuse of travelers for 
not reporting was that they did not know it was necessary to report, 
or did not see the customs station. 

In the interest of closer supervision of motorboats, some of 
which had been used extensively in smuggling liquor during 
prohibition, I recommended more rigid enforcement of the law 
requiring stricter registration of new and old motorboats upon 
transfer of ownership, and that a fee be charged of one dollar 
and up according to capacity and value, much the same as auto- 
mobiles are licensed, thereby creating a source of revenue and 
at the same time insuring closer supervision over such boats. This 
work involved some 300,000 boats. This matter was referred to 
the Department of Commerce which has jurisdiction over such 

One of my broadest policies in the Bureau was strict econ- 
omy. For example, I decreased the Commissioner’s office per- 
sonnel from six to two and a part-time officer. My predecessor 
272 had a secretary and three stenographer clerks, an executive as- 

New Dealer 

sistant, and a chief clerk— six. My force consisted of the same 
secretary and one stenographer clerk with only occasional assis- 
tance from another stenographer, and a Mr. Benner who acted 
at the same time as deputy commissioner in charge of adminis- 
trative matters. In addition to the foregoing, I abolished the office 
of stenographer for the Bureau (salary $2300) and reduced the 
personnel of the Division of Mails and Files from thirty-six to 
twenty-three and at the same time increased the efficiency of that 

Moving Upstairs 

In 1939, it was easy to see that the war was about to involve 
the United States and international shipping problems were then 
some of the most delicate and troublesome confronting the De- 
partment, and were giving the President concern. No ship could 
enter or depart from the country without reporting to and obtain- 
ing the approval of the Customs Bureau. It was therefore pivotal 
in the government service involved. An expert on ships and 
shipping of a high order was needed, and to obtain such, the vice 
president of the United States Shipping Company, a $25,000-a-year 
man, was induced to accept the place as a patriotic duty at $ 10,000 
a year, and that was a high salary in the government. He was not 
only placed at the head of the Customs Bureau but made a special 
assistant to the Secretary of the Treasury with an office near the 
Secretary as well as in the Bureau. At the same time he became an 
advisor of the President. And I was made an assistant to the 

How far my age (nearly eighty-two) figured in this change, I 
do not know, but I know that it would have been very serious 
for any mistakes to occur in the Bureau both for the nation and 
for the Secretary, as he was a very nervous man. But since I was 
never an efficiency expert and because I was a man of my age, 
it is significant that they subsequently gave me the assignment 
of studying and reporting improvements that might be made in 
the savings bond business, because it had grown so rapidly. It 
then had a billion-dollar-a-year business and was on the way to 
becoming (as it since has) a monstrous affair, especially if the 

2 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 1. 


Chapter 9 

United States entered the war. And President Roosevelt was pre- 
paring for that eventuality as fast as Congress would permit. 

I believe I was selected for that work because of my efforts 
during the Wilson administration and in my service as Commis- 
sioner of Customs to reduce waste and to upgrade efficiency. I 
think the Secretary was particularly mindful of my recommenda- 
tions to abolish the national bank notes and to reduce the size of 
paper money, and so on. I may be overly appreciative of my good 
judgment, but I think Roosevelt and Morgenthau believed I could 
come up with some good ideas for improving the bond effort, and 
I believe I did. 3 

From the Ranks of the Obscure 

It is remarkable that Roosevelt selected a number of his chief 
aides from the ranks of the unknown and obscure, the most 
notable of which were Morgenthau and our own Marriner Eccles 
of Utah. Prior to his being called to Washington by the President, 
Secretary Morgenthau had held no office or place in public life 
except New York state forester when Roosevelt was governor, 
and precinct chairman in the Democratic Party of Duchess 
County. He was a graduate of Cornell, and in business a dairy 
farmer, though his father was one of the wealthy real estate 
owners of New York City and a former ambassador to Turkey. I 
had never heard of him before his coming to Washington in the 
1930s except that he had a fine herd of Holsteins, which I had 
learned from the Holstein Journal. In a conversation with Senator 
Carter Glass, the dean and seer of the Senate under whom I had 
served in the Treasury, I learned that Glass was shocked at the 
appointment of Morgenthau as Secretary and that Morgenthau’s 
own father was quite as much shocked. Apparently, his aged 
father had never entrusted him with his own business. (The 
Senator did not contemplate that this comment would be pub- 
lished, though he placed no restrictions on it.) Morgenthau did 
not have a popular appeal. I doubt that he could have gotten 
anywhere at the political polls. He was of a nervous, suspicious 
nature, and did not get along well with his subordinates, of which 
he had many, until he selected a civil service man, a department 


3 Memorandum dated Nov. 1945, Box 13, fd 3. 

New Dealer 

career man. The Secretary was a very poor speaker and did not 
appear to be bold, but he did act affirmatively in staff matters . 4 

Morgenthau was chosen, I think, because he was Roosevelt’s 
friend and neighbor in Duchess County, though their farms are 
well apart, and evidently because Roosevelt saw more in him than 
others did, even his own father. I think he is an only son. Anyway, 
it was said in Washington that the President was his own Secretary 
of the Treasury and Labor, but in spite of it all, Morgenthau seems 
to have weathered the blasts and made an acceptable Secretary of 
the Treasury. Eccles, though previously unknown outside of north- 
ern Utah and southern Idaho, and among the bankers of the state, 
and never a Democrat so far as I know or any members of his family 
(and I knew his father well), has made his way and is a great credit 
to his state. He is strictly business and attends to his own knitting, 
and has had very little to do with the people of Utah. 

These two men, Eccles and Morgenthau, illustrate something 
of the originality and courage of our great President. Morgenthau 
was appointed chiefly because of friendship and Roosevelt’s trust 
in his loyalty and the President’s uncanny understanding of men. 
Eccles was an apparent stranger, exhibiting in an obscure way 
progressive ideals that chanced to come to the President, probably 
through another obscurity. Secretary of War George H. Dern, also 
from Utah, the state never before recognized with a cabinet 
position. The two of them were from a state with little more than 
a half million population. 

The President knew Dern as a fellow governor and as a distinct 
progressive. That was a real touchstone with Roosevelt. He was 
certainly hipped on progressives, especially if they showed origi- 
nality, but Dern was, like his father, a very substantial man. There 
was nothing in his administration as governor or Secretary of War 
that indicated reform or originality. He just went along satisfacto- 
rily without making mistakes. He was conservative rather than 

4 Memorandum dated Nov. 1945, Box 13, fd 2. See Dean L. May, “From New 
Deal to New Economics: The Response of Henry Morgenthau, Jr., and Marriner S. Ec- 
cles to the Recession of 1937,” Ph.D. diss., Brown University, 1974, pp. 27-109; John 
Morton Blum, From the Morgenthau Diaries, 3 vols. to date (Boston: Houghton Mifflin 
Co., 1959-67); Marriner S. Eccles, Beckoning Frontiers: Public and Personal Recollections, 
ed. by Sidney Hyman (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1951). 

Chapter 9 

radical, but his ideas and reading were in full sympathy with the 
progressives and the President. 5 

Cordell Hull and Daniel C. Roper 

I enjoyed the opportunity of associating with other prominent 
New Deal figures. For example, in my relations and work with 
Cordell Hull, the Secretary of State, I was very impressed with his 
comparatively quiet, modest, and unostentatious but firm and 
emphatic decisions. He was a clean character and a straight, 
forthright thinker, and his public life endeared him to those who 
knew him. He is now (October 1944) in Moscow on probably the 
most important mission of his life. Upon its results much depends, 
but he always has been safe and extremely capable and in my 
opinion always will be. His long career as Congressman, Chairman 
of the Democratic Party, Senator, and for nearly eleven years 
Secretary of State justified all the best that can be said of him, 
notwithstanding there is nothing in his career that is brilliant or 
showy. His consistency, persistence, and continuous usefulness are 
(like labor) his great genius. 6 

I can think of no greater tribute to him than the fact that I 
could say to President David O. McKay, when he wanted me to 
talk to President Roosevelt about saving Clearfield from the loss 
of about a thousand acres of its best parts, that I could not take 
up such a detail with the President without some embarrassment 
in view of the decisions reached, but I could freely discuss it with 
Secretary Hull. And if my request was not inconsistent or unwise 

I could rely on his doing what he could to aid us. If he felt it 
would be fair to the President and justifiable, I would be able to 
talk to the President. I am sure any friend, however humble, 
would feel the same. Notwithstanding the obstacles to going 
directly to important officials in Washington, I would, while rec- 

5 Memorandum dated Nov. 1945, Box 13, fd 2. 

( ’ Memorandum dated Oct. 1944, Box 1, fd 2. It is possible that Moyle misdated 
this memorandum, because though Hull was in Moscow in October 1944, the work 
there (“the Second Moscow Conference") pertained exclusively to Great Britain and 
the Soviet Union. Much more significant to Hull’s role in the summitry of World War 

II was the Moscow Conference of Foreign Ministers held in October 1943. From this 
meeting emerged the Moscow Declaration, an important precursor to the estab- 
lishment of the United Nations. 


New Dealer 

ognizing my retirement and obscurity, not hesitate to walk in on 
and surprise the Secretary with a subject of comparative unim- 
portance. I believe such to be his tolerant, genial, and simple life, 
and his characteristics; there is nothing pompous or aristocratic 
about him.' 

Daniel C. Roper, a South Carolina lawyer, was Commissioner 
of Internal Revenue and Secretary of Commerce under Roosevelt. 
He did not reach the peak Hull did but was the same type of 
person. I was more intimate with him because his time and 
positions in office were more nearly the same as mine. He spent 
pretty much all of his life in Washington, and was a man of fine 
spiritual as well as intellectual character. Roper was also McAdoo’s 
political manager, which brought me into closer relationship with 
him. He was a bright light in the firmament of Washington. 

Both Hull and Roper were two men in Washington to whom 
I freely went with my political problems and never failed to receive 
a warm welcome. Mrs. Moyle was on the intimate social list of Mrs. 
Hull and Mrs. Roper. Roper was more socially inclined than Hull, 
though the latter went along with his wife. Hull was more at home 
at work and shined when so engaged. I knew quite well many other 
New Dealers, but Hull and Roper were my most intimate associates 
in the administration . 7 8 

The Church Security Program 

While I served under Roosevelt, my relationship with the 
Church entered some new conflicts and at the same time some 
new meanings. I was in London on customs business when the 
Church announced the Church Security Program (now Church 
Welfare Plan). When I arrived at the United States Customs office 
the next morning, someone handed me a bulletin that was sent to 
all British offices concerning the announcement of the day before 
of what the Mormons were going to do in social service and 
welfare. On my return to Washington, I was delighted beyond 
measure to see the Church plan reported in the newsreel in a 

7 Memorandum dated Oct. 1944, Box 1, fd 2. See Leonard J. Arrington and 
Archer L. Durham, “Anchors Aweigh in Utah: The U.S. Naval Supply Depot at Clear- 
field, 1942-1962,” Utah Historical Quarterly 31 (1963): 109-26. 

8 Memorandum dated Oct. 1944, Box 1, fd 2. 


Chapter 9 

leading movie house. No other church, however rich, could dare 
to undertake the task of providing for the necessities of life for all 
of its needy members, especially in this nation where the high 
standard of living requires such a quality and quantity of materials. 
More impressive still is the fact that welfare is not all that Mormon- 
ism attempted during that period of great human danger. It used 
all of the moral suasion it had at its command to induce its 
members to abandon the generosities of government in favor of 
its provision for the needy. The pressure was so great that it tried 
the faith of many who disagreed with the Church’s strict ideas 
about personal and economic responsibility. The Church will 
provide only what is needed and damns idleness and lack of thrift, 
and denounces anything that encourages dependence where inde- 
pendence can be maintained . 9 10 

There can be no doubt about the correctness of the Church 
position. The only question is its practicability and justice to the 
taxpayer, who pays the government for making the liberal contri- 
bution to charity and who also pays one-tenth of his income to the 
Church for the same and other objectives. The Church, with its 
more perfect inexpensive organization, can do what the govern- 
ment cannot— discriminate among the needy according to need. It 
also urges the preservation of the highest order of manhood, that 
its members who are able should take care of their own and 
thereby dignify the independence of manhood. Let him who will 
not work not eat the bread of the laborer."’ 

If the Church continues its efforts, and its officers claim it is 
making real progress, it will be a phenomenon that will startle the 
world more than its original announcement did, and the movies 
will report it as one of the great achievements of the time. Indeed 
it would be one, but it now seems destined to failure. It runs so 
counter to man’s self interest, but selfishness is what Christianity 

9 Memorandum dated Sept. 1945, Box 13, fd 1. See Leonard J. Arrington and 
Wayne K. Hinton, “Origin of the Welfare Plan of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- 
day Saints,” Brigham, Young University Studies 5 (Winter 1964): 67-85; Garth L. Man- 
gum and Bruce D. Blumell, The Mormons' War on Poverty (Salt Lake City: University of 
Utah Press, 1993), pp. 130-47. 

10 Memorandum dated Sept. 1945, Box 13, fd 1. As Moyle wrote this passage, 
his oldest son, Henry D. Moyle, was serving as chair of the Church Welfare Commit- 


New Dealer 

teaches man to overcome. I hope the Church will succeed. I find 
no trouble in contributing, as is the case with so many of the active 
members. I regard paying taxes (much as it hurts) as vital to a real 
Christian as paying tithing, which is, nevertheless, older than the 
modern system of taxation. All organized societies have had to 
have contributions of some kind. It is, however, a little less than 
marvelous how the Church gets so much real work done beyond 
the contribution of money and goods. Men who work all day for 
their living spend several hours at night continuing to work in all 
kinds of physical and mental energy to aid the needy and keep up 
the welfare projects and welfare centers the new system has 
established. All that work is freely given. It looks doubtful to me 
that that can be continued except under the pressure of real 
exciting need. Ordinary need will not be enough unless the spiri- 
tual overcomes the physical. That is possible, but more improb- 
able, for natural law would seem to deny its continued success." 

A Bold Challenge 

There is something about that bold challenge of this Church 
with only a million or less members (and poor people generally at 
that) demanding that Mormons all get off the government rolls 
and get on to the Church aid rolls. It appears, if I understand the 
situation correctly, to be real coercion. I believe that bold challenge 
is a cause of amazement. I would rather (if viewing the matter 
practically) use the money to build up enterprises that would 
furnish work for those aided by the government, make their places 
of worship and entertainment more attractive, increase the social 
environment, and at the same time build up industry and the 
advancement of knowledge and intelligence. That would build up 
better and higher ideals and would be far better than the govern- 
ment policy of putting men on the charity dole merely because 
they were sixty-five years old, or because they were unemployed. 
That is the commendable aim of the Church and I admire it. But 
it is only a part of my amazement. While the Church thus puts itself 
in competition with the government in doing that which is the aim 
of both, through its Deseret News it champions the cause of return- 

11 Memorandum dated Sept. 1945, Box 13, fd 1. 

Chapter 9 

ing to the good old doctrines of Harding’s “return to normalcy” 
in its hatred for the enlightened policies of the New Deal. iJ 

I am deeply interested in the rivalry between the leadership 
of the Church and its welfare system and the present system of 
social welfare of the state and nation. The former seeks to pre- 
serve the independence and self-respect of the individual, to 
preserve his desire to work, to be thrifty and industrious and 
contribute his might to production and enterprise and the up- 
building of a desirable social and economic society. The reforms 
of the New Deal of the early 1930s, however good or bad, cer- 
tainly preceded and stimulated the most commendable and 
world-stirring welfare work of the Church in harmony with its 
ideals from its origin. It looks very much like a new David with 
his sling trying to outdo the giant Goliath and set an example 
for the greatest nation on earth in its Herculean effort to solve 
the problem of unemployment and social justice. My regret is 
that the movement was not started before 1933 rather than after 
1935, and that the leadership of the Church has exhibited such 
an intolerant opposition to the leadership of Roosevelt as the 
President of our great nation, and his effort (however imperfect) 
to promote social welfare and economic justice, in opposition to 
the domination of wealth in our great and progressive nation. 
President Franklin D. Roosevelt has turned his back on the domi- 
nating class of wealth into which he was born and therefore has 
its unbounded opposition and violent hatred. And he has with a 
whole heart turned his face toward the uplifting of the common 
man like his great predecessors, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham 

A Vital Part of Mormonism 

All my life I have been a believer in Jesus Christ, the Savior 
of all, and his great modern prophet, Joseph Smith, and have 
tried successfully to believe in the social system Christ instituted 
that was evidently aimed at having no rich or poor. It was not 
so difficult to establish that system because of the belief that the 
all-wise, martyred King was soon to return and firmly establish 
His Kingdom over all. It lasted for a while in some form, but 


12 Memorandum dated Nov. 1944, Box 1, fd 3. 

New Dealer 

gradually disappeared as it became more apparent that the return 
of the Savior and King was not to be in the time of those living. 
The same ideal, generally called the United Order of God, was 
again revealed to the great American prophet of God, Joseph 
Smith, over a hundred years ago and an attempt made to rees- 
tablish it. Like its predecessor it soon yielded to the presence of 
human, selfish weakness before the Prophet’s martyrdom. The 
law of tithing, like the law of carnal commandments of lesser law 
of Israel, was accepted in the place of the Gospel in its fullness. 

As a young man in the 1870s I witnessed the effort of 
Brigham Young to establish the United Order. It was a real effort 
on the part of a very few. President Young, though he encouraged 
it, did not join it himself. What the inducement was I do not 
know, but it kept alive the belief in it and the determination to 
live it someday. Brigham Young’s clear vision apparently was that 
the jury existed and the trial was worthwhile. This was during his 
last years and poor health. Had he been in good health and lived 
longer the movement would doubtless have gone farther. It was 
for a few years a real success, and set a real example of what 
could be done, for there was in those days a living, vital faith 
that needed a Brigham Young to guide it. 

But it survived his day in spirit and its importance was im- 
pressed upon me shortly after I left the Eastern States Mission in 
1933, and was living in Washington. The new and beautiful chapel 
there was the pride of its occupants. It attracted the favorable 
attention of many people of importance, among them Vice Presi- 
dent Henry A. Wallace who was then Secretary of Agriculture. He 
happened to attend a Sunday meeting there and the speaker was 
Judge Gustave Iverson. Branch President Edgar Brossard, a promi- 
nent member of the Tariff Commission, asked me to entertain the 
Vice President at the meeting. He was accompanied by his aide, a 
friendly Utahn, who had accompanied the Secretary on a social 
research visit to Utah in which Wallace, according to the aide, 
exhibited much interest in the social history of Mormonism, and 
particularly its United Order in Utah. He visited Southern Utah, 
taking in Orderville where the United Order was set up on the 
grassroots of the sagebrush. The Secretary’s attendant informed 
me that his chief was greatly interested and valued the trip and was 
greatly impressed with the experiment. Here was the Vice Presi- 


Chapter 9 

dent, the foremost social reformer of this country, deeply im- 
pressed with the social order and conceptions of the Mormons. 
The United Order in Utah, like that of Missouri and Ohio, did not 
live long, but it is just the same a vital part of Mormonism and will 
some day flourish as such. That is as certain as the divinity of the 
golden rule. 1 ’ 

A Politico-Religious Puzzle 

What puzzles me is why the members of the First Presidency 
of the Church are so violently and uncompromisingly opposed to 
the New Deal reforms which have so much of the golden rule in 
them. I am surprised in view of my intimacy with President Grant 
that I have never asked him to explain that opposition, and just 
how, when, and why the Church’s present social welfare program 
was instituted following and not preceding that of the government, 
and why the violent opposition to Roosevelt, and I say “violent” 
advisedly. 1 can understand why there is opposition, but why so 
violent? Personally, I believe that President Clark is largely respon- 
sible for the violent phase of the question, because of his unrea- 
sonable opposition to the Democratic Party and its policies. But 
did not the New Deal reforms inspire the institution of the Church 
Welfare System? If so, did that inspiration have anything to do with 
the hatred for the New Deal?" 

In my opinion President Grant was a conservative Democrat 
up to the time of the death of his counselor and greatly-loved 
cousin, Anthony W. Ivins, in 1934. At least he thought he was and 
consistently called himself a Democrat. It is true that he admitted 
having voted only for Republican Presidents except once for 
Woodrow Wilson. That was when he kept us out of the war 
temporarily. I do not know whether he might have voted for 
Roosevelt in 1932, but I presume he voted for Hoover the second 

13 Memorandum dated July 1944, Box 10, fd 7. Wallace’s impressions of Mor- 
monism apparently went beyond the casual observation of the United Order in Utah. 
For example, he once said that “of all the American books of the 19th Century, it 
seems probable that the Book of Mormon was the most powerful. It reached perhaps 
only one percent of the United States, but it affected that one percent so powerfully 
and lastingly, that all the people of the United States have been affected.” New York 
Times, 5 Nov. 1937. 

14 Memorandum dated July 1944, Box 10, fd 7. 


New Dealer 

time. He had done so for his predecessors, Coolidge and Harding, 
and I never heard of him or the Deseret News which he controlled 
ever having had anything to say against even the foul, odoriferous 
Harding administration. In fact, up to 1934, the uniform and 
general policy of the Presidency of the Church and the Deseret News 
seemed to be to support the administration in office rather than 
oppose it whether Democratic or Republican. But in 1936, when 
Roosevelt ran the second time, President Grant and his counselors 
published sensationally a front-page editorial or boxed statement 
declaring the President communistic and therefore advised its 
readers to support Landon, the farmer from Kansas. I do not know 
whether he was a farmer or not but I know he was not known for 
his statesmanship. 15 

President Grant was naturally democratic in everything except 
where financial interests were involved. No man could have been 
more democratic than he is in everything else. The latch string was 
literally on the outside of his door; I thought too much so to avoid 
interruptions and waste of time that should not occur. That was 
changed when President Clark came upon the scene and the public 
was fenced out. But when President Grant came to my office in 
Washington, he did not have his secretary arrange for an appoint- 
ment. Instead he came alone and waited to see me when I was at 
liberty to do so. His informality in his home was clearly exhibited 
when away from it. No public man was more open and frank, and 
democratic in his private as well as public activities, but the 
Democratic Party was advocating a tariff for revenue only and he 
was for protection and for giving big industry the green light. As 
that was a controlling factor in his political belief, he was very 
largely a Republican rather than a Democrat during all his later 
life and more mature years. 

The change in the Church position was startlingly apparent 
after the death of President Ivins. President Grant and the News 
almost immediately ceased to have anything good to say about the 
League of Nations, which both had previously supported heartily. 
Indeed, President Grant had presided at a League of Nations rally 

15 Memorandum dated Oct. 1945, Box 13, fd 1. See Frank H. Jonas, “Utah: The 
Different State,” in Frank H. Jonas, ed., Politics in the American West (Salt Lake City: 
University of Utah Press, 1969), p. 332. 


Chapter 9 

in the Tabernacle; his heart was with the League. But in 1934, the 
policy changed and the statements of the Presidency and the 
Deseret News became nationalistic and against almost everything 
President Roosevelt advocated. Almost all of the occupants of the 
offices of the Church at 47 East South Temple Street who were 
sympathetic to FDR kept quiet and those who were opposed 
became very vocal. The intensity of that opposition was not ex- 
ceeded anywhere, not even on Wall Street which had a bit put in 
its mouth that ended the nefarious activities of its stock exchange 
that had opened the door to enrich the few and filch from the 
many. The only visible reason for this sudden change in Church 
position I ever heard is the influence of the man selected to take 
the place of Anthony W. Ivins as First Counselor, J. Reuben Clark, 
Jr., an unreconstructed follower of Cabot Lodge in his isolationist 
fight against the League and the splendid reforms of that great 
political seer, Woodrow Wilson. 16 

J. Reuben Clark, Jr. 

President Clark came to his church leadership with a fine 
record as a Latter-day Saint, international lawyer, and Ambassador 
to Mexico. He had attained worthwhile distinctions that had come 
to no other member of the Church. He was mentally equipped to 
be the first man in the Church after its President and he certainly 
became such in its fullness as the aged President declined in 
activity. He was not lacking in spirituality and religious devotion; 
I greatly admired his family. They clearly indicated a growth and 
spirituality in a religious atmosphere that justified reliance on him 
as a real Latter-day Saint. 1 ' 

I believe that Clark honestly and sincerely believes that Wood- 
row Wilson was, like FDR, an evil genius in our government, 

16 Memorandum dated Oct. 1945, Box 13, fd 1. Clark served as counsel to Sena- 
tor Philander P. Knox, one of the “irreconcilable” who stubbornly opposed the ratifi- 
cation of the Treaty of Versailles with its provision for the League of Nations. See 
Janies B. Allen, “J. Reuben Clark, Jr., on American Sovereignty and Internal Organiza- 
tion,” Brigham Young University Studies 13 (Spring 1973): 17-42; Frank W. Fox,/. 

Reuben Clark: The Public Years (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 1980), pp. 

17 Memorandum dated Oct. 1945, Box 13, fd 1. See Gene A. Sessions, Prophesy- 
ing Upon the Bones: J. Reuben Clark and the Foreign Debt Crisis, 1933-39 (Urbana: Univer- 
sity of Illinois Press, 1992), pp. 42-50. 


New Dealer 

undermining its very foundations, the first in destroying the 
sovereignty of the God-instituted government, and the latter in 
undermining the cornerstones of that nation’s social and eco- 
nomic freedoms and putting in vital danger the Constitution, the 
most sacred thing in our national life. In this way he justifies the 
lack of any charity or tolerance for the President of the United 
States, whose glory now seems fixed and certain to place him in 
the ranks of Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, and Wilson, the greatest 
of our Presidents since Washington. What the future will unfold 
is not for me to determine, but it is clear to me now that President 
Clark, notwithstanding his equipment and real greatness, does not 
have the fullness of the hearts of his people whom he wants to 
serve. I may be and probably am wrong in my conclusions, but 
time will tell. 1 * 

The nearly seditious editorial policy of the Deseret News, which 
Clark reputedly controls, has brought that long-revered paper into 
general disrepute and probably financial loss. I know a number of 
good Saints have cancelled their subscriptions, something I have 
not done nor encouraged. Its religious news is worth its cost, and 
it should be in every Mormon home for that reason alone, but the 
Tribune is so outclassing the News that many say they get all they 
need from it and do not care to support the perturbing editorial 
policy of the Neius by subscribing to it . 19 

I believe and trust with an immovable faith that the Lord is at 
the helm of the Church and that all will be well. If the policies 
credited to President Clark of which I have so disapproved even- 
tually show the marks of divine guidance then I hope my readers 
will see in it the divinity I lacked and President Clark enjoyed, and 
if I am right that they will see in it all a passing episode of man’s 
fallibility soon to be forgotten. Some very good people have left 
the Church because they saw in some respect error on the part of 
Church leadership, and it may have been in error. But what man 
does not err? Is it not natural and universal in all men? Look at 

18 Memorandum dated Oct. 1945, Box 13, fd 1. See Martin B. Hickman, “J. 
Reuben Clark, Jr.: The Constitution and the Great Fundamentals,” Brigham Young Uni- 
versity Studies 13 (Spring 1973): 25-42. 

19 Memorandum dated Oct. 1945, Box 13, fd 1. Jonas, “The Different State,” p. 
332, reports “thousands of subscriptions” lost because of this editorial policy. 


Chapter 9 

the terrible errors of the great kings, Solomon and David. Who 
has done worse than Peter who denied Christ in His hour of great 
trial? Did that destroy the redeeming truth or its agents or agen- 
cies? Truth is truth wherever found, and the only course is to 
adhere to it when it is found. Man’s human weaknesses cannot 
chance the truth or justify its abandonment. The truth will tri- 
umph, despite man’s mistakes." 1 ’ 

President Grant, Democrat or Republican? 

Even without the influence of Reuben Clark, President Grant 
has in recent years become more of a Republican than a Democrat. 
He had repeated the statement to me and others that I have tried 
to read him out of the Democratic Party. My reply is that I would 
rather have him an out-and-out Republican fighting us from the 
front than a Democrat fighting from the rear. But in all, the 
President has given the Church a notable and successful admini- 
stration and has always been on the best of terms with me, because 
he knew my heart was in the right place on Church affairs, though 
1 did get off politically in his opinion. He never called me to 
account for it or questioned my sincerity and right to follow my 
convictions. Unfortunately, however, there have been few Demo- 
crats among the top leaders of the Church who have been willing 
to raise their voices in protest against the flagrant intrusions of 
Republican politics in Church circles. Moses Thatcher, Anthony 
W. Ivins, B. H. Roberts, andj. Golden Kimball are exceptions, but 
each was neutralized by some other factor. Thatcher was extreme 
and was dropped front power; Ivins was emphatic but conservative; 
Roberts was eloquent and forceful but backed down under great 
pressure; Kimball’s objections were veiled in wit and came forth 
infrequently. And there was understandably no Republican among 
the Brethren who openly expressed any objection to the intrusion 
of politics in religion so far as 1 know, and I observed the situation 

Equally disturbing to me was the feeling that the Democrats 
among the leaders of the Church were being used to express 

2 ° Memorandum dated Oct. 1945, Box 13, fd 1. See D. Michael Quinn, 

J. Reuben Clark: The Church Years (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 1983), 
pp. 70-94. 


New Dealer 

disapproval of Democratic policy. Evidence of this that comes 
notably to mind was the case when great excitement prevailed 
against President Roosevelt’s effort to “reform the Supreme 
Court.” The leaders treated it as if it was something entirely new 
and unbecoming and without any justification, while it in fact had 
many precedents and there was abundant need for it. In the spring 
of 1937 Apostlejoseph F. Merrill delivered a radio address bitterly 
opposed to the President’s move and expressing the views only of 
the opposition. The Brethren seemed to think generally with him 
that there was only one side to that question. It well illustrates how 
a lack of knowledge in the face of popular clamor unduly influ- 
ences good and otherwise well-informed and well-intending per- 
sons who conclude that there is only one side to a question. That 
was well illustrated in that address by a one-time enthusiastic 
Democrat and splendid man. That led me to write a long letter to 
Elder Merrill in which I expressed my shock at his attitude and that 
of the Church leadership. 21 

When President Grant suffered his paralytic strokes and had 
to curtail his previous activity very largely, President Clark 
seemed to take over the leadership of the Church in practical 
affairs, public and political relations, while President McKay be- 
came conspicuous in the spiritual affairs of the Church for which 
he was admirably fitted, just as President Clark was fitted by 
experience, taste, and natural instinct for politics and public 
affairs. Clark often refers to his try for the Senate in 1928 and 
says that if the people who said they were for him really were he 
would have had a walkaway. I mention this only to show how 
politically minded the gentleman is. Indeed, he is regarded as 
the arch-Republican leader in Utah, operating largely but not 
entirely in the background. It is claimed for him by intimate 
friends that he is no more partisan in his views than President 
McKay, but the latter keeps it all in the background and has not 
become outwardly offensive to Democrats. 

President Clark is credited with the actual dominating leader- 
ship of the party with his old law partner Albert E. Bowen, the 
apostle, and Orval Adams, the banker, and in directing the policy 
of the Deseret News in its persistent sniping and open fight against 

21 Memorandum dated Nov. 1944, Box 1, fd 3. 


Chapter 9 

President Roosevelt and his administration. That paper seems to 
search the political garbage cans for some example or statement 
to use as an excuse to attack indirectly or directly the President. 

But I emphasize again that it is generally understood that 
President Grant himself is so prejudiced against President 
Roosevelt that he will not listen to anything he says, and that for 
one whom he respects to praise President Roosevelt in his pres- 
ence raises his blood pressure seriously, because he, like President 
Clark, thinks sincerely that President Roosevelt is a real enemy of 
the Constitution and Government of the United States and that 
he is endangering the very life of the nation. Such is the tension 
as it is reliably reported about Church headquarters. 

I have always been concerned over the adverse effects of the 
course of conservatism such as the Church leaders seem to have 
chosen. During the middle ages, men were so intent upon follow- 
ing authority and tradition that it was not popular to deviate from 
established usages and ideas. To innovate was objectionable, but 
rather to do as had been done was the proper thing. While 
traveling in 1936, we found in Palestine and more so in more 
remote Damascus in Syria that such was the case to the extent that 
in some communities and sections when a building was too far 
gone to be used any longer, they would rebuild it as near as they 
could as it had previously been. We were shown the foundation of 
an old residence that was cleared for the erection on it of a new 
building to be as much like the old one as possible. The buildings 
in the neighborhood indicated that they were likewise preserved 
with no material change being made. Improvements that consti- 
tuted anything akin to innovation were omitted. Simplicity, antiq- 
uity, and economy in construction were the central thoughts." 


At the end of the decade, I had decided that after eighty-two 
years of life it was time to think of retiring. My resignation and 
retirement were due to several causes— my age, almost eighty-two, 
was prime among them. My resignation was accepted to take effect 
July 19, 1940, less than two months short of my eighty-second 

22 Memorandum dated Nov. 1944, Box 1, fd 3. 


New Dealer 

birthday. My health, however, was never better so that was not a 
controlling factor, but my concern over it certainly was. 

Mrs. Moyle and I had judiciously prepared for the day of my 
retirement. In addition to a very nice home in the city, we had the 
beautiful cottage at Brighton. We had concluded in 1921 that the 
farm at Cottonwood would be the place where we would spend 
the most time in the summer, however, so we built a cottage there 
also beside the lake and made it suitable for spring and fall use 
when Brighton would not be available. But my love of the outdoors 
and a nearness to the mountains has always been extreme, so I 
loved Brighton most of all. In spite of this, Mrs. Moyle urged giving 
up Brighton and using the farm exclusively in the summer, and 
that we did. We wanted to enjoy for a few years at least the 
provisions we had made so many years before for our last days on 
earth, and I had work to do that could only be done at my age by 
retiring from active service to a place of peace. 

While my investments had not been planned to produce with 
certainty an income, I thought that the property we had would 
carry us through. As previously stated, my investments were largely 
influenced by my likes; I bought Brighton because I loved the 
place. I love livestock, and consequently have considerable hold- 
ings in it, but I have also invested heavily in such things as mining 
and real estate, because I wanted a real stake in my native Utah 
and its industries, and into the same all of the extra money that 
came my way went, much of which produces no or little income. 
I have lost heavily as well as made some. 

The most controlling reason for resigning was a desire to be 
with our children and their numerous families, and to be with our 
old friends at the finish. J! 

23 Undated memorandum, Box 8, fd 9. See additionally for the New Deal pe- 
riod the following: interview with Evelyn Moyle Nelson by Gene A. Sessions, 20 June 
1974, transcript of twelve pages, CLA, pp. 4-7; interview with Sara Moyle Creer by 
Gene A. Sessions, 3 July 1974, transcript of nineteen pages, CLA, pp. 16-17; interview 
with James D. Moyle by Gene A. Sessions, 1 1 Aug. 1974, transcript of eighteen pages, 
CLA, pp. 1-12; Gene A. Sessions, ed., “A View of James Henry Moyle: His Diaries and 
Letters,” unpublished manuscript, 1974, CLA, pp. 89-129. 


Chapter 10 


Evolution of the Royal Family Concept 

I have spent my life in devotion to Democracy and Mormonism, 
but my nearness to their leaders has at times raised serious 
questions in my mind about their worthiness. Charity must prevail 
and I have tried to see each in the light of the good he has done. 
Power has seemed to me to be a big problem. Joseph Smith, for 
example, if he had lived long in the seclusion of the Rocky 
Mountains where his word would have been the law and the end 
of the matter, would have developed even greater dominance over 
material affairs than did Brigham Young. It is instinctive in man 
(and they were both mortal men) to love power. The more power 
men exercise the more they think it belongs to them. In both cases 
they and their followers believed that they were divinely called to 
exercise great power. Though they placed a healthy general restric- 
tion on the exercise of power and set forth grand and fundamental 
principles of government, each of the two prophets wanted his 
own children to enjoy privileges not enjoyed by other families. This 
was notable in the provisions made for the enjoyment forever of 
the family of the Prophet in the Mansion House in Nauvoo, and 


Chapter 10 

still more important the inheritance of the right of Presidecy of 
the Church. The actual position of the Prophet on the latteis not 
clear except in the general principles he enunciated, whiclwere 
clearly against that proposition. But evidently something ws said 
or done to give apparentjustification for the claim of the Reirgan- 
ized Church that the Presidency of the Church was a divineright 
vested in the posterity of Joseph’s descendants. Its outstanding 
cornerstone is that only a son or grandson could be President and 
Prophet of the Church and that church persists with an intelligent 
following into the hundreds of thousands . 1 

Brigham seemed to have been affected with the same ambition 
as Joseph Smith, namely to have a son at the head of the Church. 
By making a young man an apostle, as was the case with President 
Young in his son Brigham, Jr., he hoped to have a son who would 
become the senior apostle and thereby president. In fact, all of the 
apostles selected, other than favored sons, were selected when they 
were in middle or matured life, and therefore they were not so 
likely to become president, unless they lived to great age. Brigham, 
Jr., did become the President of the Twelve because he outlived 
his senior apostles, although he did not live long enough to 
become President. It has been the common fate of families of the 
great in the Church and out to be made up of all kinds of people, 
good, bad, and indifferent. Even Father Adam’s second son mur- 
dered his own righteous brother because of jealousy. Jealousy, I 
believe, did more than anything else to turn the three witnesses of 
the Book of Mormon from their great prophet and the Church 
itself. It is a corrupting, damning sin that should be avoided like 
poison. Jealousy, like selfishness and particularly selfish ambition, 
has led many of the best astray. One of the most impressive things 
to me in my interview of two hours with David Whitmer was the 
fact that he declared that Joseph Smith became a fallen prophet 
of God through the influence over him of Sidney Rigdon, when 
the Prophet had made him the second elder in the Church over 

1 Memorandum dated Jan. 1945, Box 12, fd 1; James Henry Moyle Collection, 
Library-Archives, Historical Department, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 
Salt Lake City, hereinafter cited as CLA. All references hereinafter to box and folder 
(fd) are for items from this collection. The RLDS church recently abandoned the in- 
heritance principle with the appointment of a non-Smith family member as president. 


Observations on the Inheritance of Church Leadership 

those who had organized the Church and made it what it was when 
Rigdon became a member."’ 

1 have no doubt that Joseph Smith made mistakes that were 
offensive to each of the three witnesses and that contributed to 
their alienation from him. But those mistakes were not comparable 
with the mistakes each of the three witnesses made. I am inclined, 
therefore, to think that Joseph Smith had performed his work, and 
that had he gone to the vastnesses of the mountains where his 
prestige would have been greater than that of Brigham’s, it might 
have resulted in his making more serious mistakes. Power loves 
and lives on power. It feeds on power, which it never voluntarily 
surrenders. The more it is exercised the more it holds on to power 
and soon leads to the conviction that it is a right, possibly a divine 
right. It has been thus that false kingcraft, false priestcraft, have 
been developed and become so supreme and arbitrary that they 
could do no wrong, however outrageous the act: “The King can 
do no wrong.” But he could not prevent men thinking that wrong 
was done. I do not believe that a prophet of God, however much 
inspired, can do no wrong. I do believe that the instinct of man 
leads to wrong as well as to right, and that no prophet of God is 
perfect, and that, on the contrary, he is imperfect, just as all human 
beings are imperfect and do imperfect and objectionable things. 
Constructive criticism is commendable and unconstructive criti- 
cism is objectionable and I do hope I avoid the latter. It is 
interesting to note how the criticisms ofjoseph Smith and Brigham 
Young have been soon forgotten and their virtues are extolled and 
grow with time, while small errors go at the same time into the 

Speaking of the selection of Church leaders, I know of none 
where the President of the Church was not personally acquainted 
with the selectee. I know of no reason why he should have made 
a selection of one whom he did not know. The reasons are 
abundant for knowing the facts so far as available, but I have 
thought it would be wonderful if one were selected unknown to 

2 Memorandum dated Dec. 1944, Box 1, fd 4 (Item 4). See Gene A. Sessions, 
ed., “A View of James Henry Moyle: His Diaries and Letters,” unpublished manu- 
script, 1974, CLA, pp. 28-30. 

3 Memorandum dated Dec. 1944, Box 1, fd 4 (Item 5). 


Chapter 10 

the General Authorities of the Church (like the calling of King 
David) who would become a great and outstanding leader. But this 
has not yet happened. Moreover, so many of the apostles have 
been the sons of the prominent leaders of the Church that I 
wondered at times if anyone else could be called. My memories of 
many of these selections are clear. 

The Case of Brigham Young 

My recollections of this phenomenon commence with the two 
sons of Brigham Young. John W. was thirty-two years old when his 
father, in the last months of his life, made him his second coun- 
selor. That appointment was generally credited to the personal 
ambition and folly of the father. The son, however, was one of the 
most magnetic men I ever knew. He was indeed a natural leader 
who had distinguished himself in both good and bad outside of 
and largely away from the Church, chiefly in adventurous railroad 
building in Utah where he started an eastern outlet for Salt Lake 
City, but got only to Park City, a western outlet which only got to 
Black Rock on the shore of the Great Salt Lake, and a northern 
outlet from Ogden that ended in Cache Valley. He did some 
grading on another road from the Big Cottonwood outlet to the 
east and on the Provo River above Heber City, the remains of 
which were visible when I visited the locality some years ago. His 
largest adventure was in New Mexico and old Mexico in building 
a western transcontinental road to the Pacific. He had large ideas. 
The bad part of it all was his getting money he could not repay. 
He was a really charming gentlemen, however, and always devoted 
to the faith of his great father. He had a real ambition to make 
Utah great and her people admired, though he did very little in 
the Church, except during the few months he was the second man 
in it and then he was a model of enthusiasm and devotion. I do 
not remember of a notable accomplishment in his term, but I have 
not investigated the subject. He was not long enough at it to do 
much. He had a real ambition and doubtless would have done 
much one way or the other if his ambition and purpose to be 
president had been gratified. The most remarkable thing about 
John W. Young was his resourcefulness. In New Mexico he had 
repeatedly and grievously disappointed the large group of men 
who worked for him and to accomplish his ends had made serious 


Observations on the Inheritance of Church Leadership 

misrepresentations. Finally, many of these men, being crude west- 
ern frontiersmen, determined to settle up with John W. through 
hanging him or otherwise putting him out of business. But when 
they confronted him, he was the same placid, suave, and resource- 
ful friend that he had always been, and they left feeling that he was 
not bad enough to destroy and even renewed their belief that he 
would some day pay them what he had so long owed them, which 
he never did. 1 

1 was attorney for John W. later in two important matters in 
his life. His was the most brilliant mind of all the Youngs except 
for that of his father. I liked and admired him, though I literally 
hated some of the important things he did, and things which in 
business were notoriously objectionable. His marvelous magnet- 
ism relieved many of their money, which was never returned. Yet 
as a rule, and so far as I know, he got the money for what he 
thought were commendable purposes, especially railroad build- 
ing. He had bigger ideas than purse to support them. I do not know 
of anything he did as a Church leader that injured the Church, and 
I presume he did some good, but 1 do not remember what. He 
overflowed with big ideas of what should be done. 

John W.’s good qualities appealed to his father, and his ambi- 
tion to have a great son in his old age led him astray. For thus far 
he had no son who had developed marked distinction. That was 
the case though he had selected and made his namesake Brigham 
an apostle when thirty-two years of age. Brigham, Jr., had never 
done anything that particularly appealed to the people and never 
did, though he went along as an apostle in an ordinary and 
acceptable way. He was a pleasing character but not an outstanding 
man. On the contrary, he was a man of ordinary accomplishments 
though he was personally well-liked, and physically well-filled oul. 
So it seems certain that the President had a real ambition for his 
sons. He ordained more than one of them to the apostleship who 
were never called to serve in the quorum. I remember only the 
name of one thus ordained, and that was Heber, a very amiable, 
nice gentleman who did not harm anyone and accomplished hut 

4 Memorandum dated Dec. 1944, Box 1, fd 4 (Item 4). See Dean C. Jessee, ed., 
Letters of Brigham Young to His Sons (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1974), pp. 91- 



Chapter 10 

comparatively little in any sphere except to rear a fine family and 
make a fine father, husband, and citizen, and a good bookkeeper. 
I refer to the facts only to show how men with much power will 
act when they let their personal desire control their action. 
Brigham Young was and always will be great and grow in greatness 
as time passes . 5 

President Grant has often spoken of the crookedness and lying 
of John W. Young, so I asked him why President Young had made 
him a counselor in the First Presidency. He did not answer the 
query, but said that he had made the motion in the Council of the 
Twelve that John W. be removed from the Presidency upon the 
death of President Young, though Daniel H. Wells, the other of 
Brigham’s counselors, was retained . 6 

In spite of this experience, each of the succeeding presidents 
felt that they should have at least a family representative in the 
apostleship, and appointed sons when unusually young so that 
they would be in line to become (with reasonable certainty) the 
president. Each had members of his family given offices that they 
probably would not have been given. President Snow was an 
exception, but not in thought so far as I can learn. President 
Grant had no son, but all the rest exercised the prerogative. Early 
deaths, excommunication, and results generally of the appoint- 
ment of sons of presidents in their early life are at least signifi- 
cant. But for those fatalities and excommunications during my 
time, there would always have been a son of a president at the 
head of the Church, provided the sons had lived a normal term 
of years.' 

Sons and Apostles 

President Taylor made his son, John W., an apostle when he 
was twenty-five. He had not distinguished himself above that of 
the many superior young men in the Church. He served only a few 
years and was excommunicated for disobedience. President Taylor 
also made an older son (who had not been what might be called a 

• r> Memorandum dated Dec. 1944, Box 1, fd 4 (Item 4). Seejessee, Letters, pp. 19- 
20, 12742. 

6 Memorandum dated Mar. 1943, Box 9, fd 7. 

7 Memorandum dated Jan. 1945, Box 12, fd 1. 


Observations on the Inheritance of Church Leadership 

real businessman) manager of the Deseret News, apparently to give 
him a much better job than he had ever held. I do not recall that 
he had done anything in particular to indicate that he was fitted 
for the position. Unquestionably, he never would have been se- 
lected by any other President of the Church. I knew him well, and 
he was a fine good man but not of the newspaper type. 

Wilford Woodruff, another of the choicest of men, made his 
son an apostle at twenty-four. He was just like the numerous 
other good and worthy young Latter-day Saints, and again, had 
done nothing to distinguish himself above those of his age. In 
fact, like John W. Taylor and Brigham Young, Jr., neither before 
or after his appointment did he do anything to indicate his 
superiority, while there were many men in the Church who had 
given evidence of great superiority. Young Woodruff served only 
seven years, though he was ordinarily of good health. The Lord, 
therefore, did not seem to give these young men any favor over 
their fellows. If either had lived as an apostle as their fathers did 
to a normal old age one of them would have been president of 
the Church. But such was not on the Lord’s program. To me, it 
was a case of man proposing and the Lord disposing, and an 
evidence that the Lord is at the helm, piloting the ship to its 
destined port. 

If the whole truth were known, I am sure it would be appar- 
ent that President Snow was afflicted with just the same desire 
but could not see the way clear to accomplish it. It is known that 
he had no son of the older families whom he could with a surety 
of success propose, though he did have one who was made 
president of a stake, and there was at least one other who was 
much on a par with the favored sons named. His situation was 
complicated some by the fact that in his old age he married a 
rather fine, charming young lady whom I know had quite an 
appeal to at least one of my intimate friends; she was a vivacious, 
vigorous, and intelligent schoolmate of mine, and she had a 
promising but very young son, Leroi, upon whom the father 
doted, and I am sure would have selected if he had thought it 
possible. He had the boy sit on the highest seats of the Tabernacle 
at General Conferences as an aide. It was common talk that the 
President wanted him made an apostle, and why it did not go 
farther I do not know.’ 1 He had never done anything to indicate 

Chapter 10 

that he was apostolic timber. He is, however, a very fine Church 
member. One thing is generally understood, namely that the 
apostles were opposed to Leroi’s appointment or it is believed 
the appointment would have been made . 8 9 

I would like to see a more detailed history of the sons of the 
presidents who were made apostles. George Q. Cannon was so 
near a president that I include his son, Abraham. I am particularly 
interested in what these young men did for the Church, and justifi- 
cation for their appointments. I have concluded that it was the 
same in every case (with one possible exception) the personal de- 
sire of the father and not the inspiration of the Lord. I am giving 
my impression, however, and not final conclusion. I remember 
particularly the appointment of Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr. His fa- 
ther had previously had his son, Hyrum, age twenty-nine, made an 
apostle just seventeen days after he had become president. Hyrum 
had nothing in particular to his credit except that he had, I pre- 
sume, always been a good boy and a fine young man. If there were 
any special accomplishments to his credit, I had not and have not 
heard of them. And then to appoint another son in his youth, at 
age thirty-three, who seemed less attractive personally seemed to 
the casual observer passing strange. Joseph Fielding was always 
very unsociable and extremely reserved. I well remember passing 
him much later on the street when he was an apostle. I had never 
formally met him until some time after, and he would nod his head 
very slightly in recognition but indicating if anything more that he 
was not interested even when I was generally recognized in a very 
different way as a coming young lawyer of some prominence. But 
he looked so serious and occupied with his own thought and unin- 
terested in others that he presented the appearance of being ex- 
tremely quiet and reserved. 

Hyrum was, I conclude, more brilliant than Joseph Fielding. 
I never heard or read much of what he said or did. He distin- 
guished himself (if that is the way to put it) in denouncing in 
extravagant terms those who appeared in bathing suits at Black 
Rock and Salt Air Beach when that first became popular fifty 
years ago. He was rashly in favor of preserving the modesty of 


8 Memorandum dated Dec. 1944, Box 1, fd 4 (Item 4). 

!l Memorandum dated Jan. 1945, Box 12, fd 1. 

Observations on the Inheritance of Church Leadership 

the past which absolutely prohibited the exposure of a lady’s 
limbs above the ankle. To permit the sight of the calf of a 
woman’s leg was immodest if not immoral, and likewise her 
breast below the neck. The newspapers reported his address on 
the subject in the Tabernacle which was very sensational. He 
was extreme on the subject. To illustrate the conditions of the 
time, when 1 purchased my first bathing suit, I tried to get the 
right kind and so far as I remember the only kind shown me. 
It was knit and covered me from my toes to my neck. I was of 
athletic build. There was no desire to obscure any part of my 
figure except as modesty and propriety then demanded. I did 
not wear that suit much and soon got another, but I did wear 
it some. I soon found that it was alright to wear low neck and 
expose the knee. To have appeared in tights with no curtain or 
second cover over the hips and crotch would have been em- 
phatically immodest in a man or woman for many years. The 
slight covering which prevails now would have been shameful, 
either in man or woman. Anyway, Hyrum M. Smith impressed 
me as having the makings of a more attractive personality than 
Joseph Fielding and probably would have developed into a fine 
preacher. He spoke with freedom and with some distinction, so 
I believe he would have made a creditable record. As it is, I 
have but little remembrance of his speaking because I heard 
him only a few times. I never heard of any enthusiasm for the 
speaking of either of the two, though I now like to hear Joseph 
Fielding. 1 " 

I have never heard the story denied that when Hyrum was ap- 
pointed, Joseph Fielding’s mother (a sister of Hyrum’s mother) was 
very determined that her son should be equally honored. She was a 
woman of positive and aggressive characteristics and an extremist 
in some respects, especially as head of the women’s department in 
the temple. She insisted rigidly that formalities to the smallest de- 
tail be followed. Another story of like significance is of interest. 
Hyrum was reported to have said to Presiding Bishop Nibley some- 
thing to the effect that he had a premonition that two of them was 
more than the Lord would approve so He would have to take one 

10 Memorandum dated Dec. 1944, Box I , fd 4 (Item 4). 


Chapter 10 

of them to even things up. That seemed a foreboding of what hap- 
pened when Hyrum died so young. 1 1 

The above may not be justified, though it is true; I am more 
than pleased to be able to present the other side of my views, 
which reflect credit rather than unfavorable criticism. The 
brother who survived, Joseph Fielding, is doing a splendid work 
in my opinion as historian of the Church. His writing on Church 
doctrine, his maintenance of the pure and unadulterated prin- 
ciples of the Gospel, his adherence to the orthodox ideals of 
the Church and maintenance of them are courageous in the 
face of the more liberal and modern thinking of so many of 
our faith. He is not a popular speaker or writer but he hits 
straight from the shoulder with pearls of truth and strict adher- 
ence to principles as they have come to us from the past. I do 
not mean that we would always think alike; we are very different, 
and yet as to fundamentals of religion we do agree and I regard 
him as a real upstanding pillar in the Church. His life has jus- 
tified his appointment. He has devoted himself to his job with 
singleness of purpose that is commendable.” 

I was greatly prejudiced against what I thought and said was so 
manifestly nepotism, but I am pleased to say that Hyrum gave the 
Church a son, Joseph F., who was deemed worthy to be the Presid- 
ing Patriarch of the Church, and Joseph Fielding has by his indus- 
try and devotion to the Church and its welfare won my esteem, con- 
fidence, and praise. By very many he is regarded as too orthodox, 
rigid, and unyielding— straight-laced. I think, however, that he is a 
courageous, straight thinker.” It was John Smith (who gave me my 
blessing) whose family failed to produce a son qualified for the of- 
fice of Patriarch, that is if continued in the favored direct line by 
right of seniorship. So they very properly and regularly selected 
this son of a junior line of inheritance, a very fine, highly-educated 
university professor of speech, but not one of the most serious 
kind, rather more witty than sober-sided. 1 believe he will make 

11 Memorandum dated Feb., Apr. 1944, Box 10, fd 6. See also memorandum 
dated Sept. 1944, Box 1, fd 1. 

12 Memorandum dated Dec. 1944, Box 1, fd 4 (Item 4). 

13 Memorandum dated Sept. 1944, Box 1, fd 1. 


Observations on the Inheritance of Church Leadership 

good, as he does have a spiritual side. The Church, however, 
seemed loath to leave the line of seniority." 

George Q. Cannon was the most potent second man in the 
Church during his long service as a counselor to the presidents of 
the Church. He was a very choice intellect, a man who would have 
made a great ambassador to any king’s court both in personality 
and qualifications, a natural diplomat and leader. But he, too, 
seemed to have the ambition of the great leaders under whom he 
served, Taylor, Woodruff, Snow, and Smith. He had a son made 
an apostle when a young man, Abraham H., who was in the same 
class as the sons of his superiors. 

It really seems to me that the Lord took these favored sons of 
their fathers to Himself because He wanted some other for Presi- 
dent, and that was the surest way to accomplish what He wanted 
and still let men exercise their free agency. Abraham H. Cannon, 
John W. Taylor, Owen Woodruff, and Hyrum M. Smith were all 
men of apparently good bodies, normal minds, and in good health, 
but the Lord took them . 15 Abraham H. Cannon was made an apos- 
tle at thirty and died seven years later. He was a bright, promising, 
and worthy young man, who at the time of his appointment also 
had nothing so far as I know to his credit that would single him out 
beyond numerous others, but the prominence of his father made 
his selection easy and natural in view of the manifest policy of hon- 
oring distinguished fathers by placing a son in line. 1 " It is singular 
that Abraham H. Cannon died so early as did also Owen Woodruff, 
particularly the latter; that John W. Taylor was excommunicated as 
was also the case of Dr. Richard R. Lyman; and that of all the sons 
of the great men in the Church of my time who were appointed 
apostles, none of them has made an outstanding record. I think 
Joseph Fielding and George Albert Smith are the most conspicu- 
ous possible exceptions. Stephen L. Richards is the most polished 
speaker now of them all. I discussed once with President Grant the 
question of why so many sons of presidents and leaders were made 

14 Memorandum dated Dec. 1944, Box 1, fd 4 (Item 5). See Irene M. Bates and 
E. Gary Smith, Lost Legacy: The Mormon Office of Presiding Patriarch (Urbana: University 
of Illinois Press, 1996), pp. 173-200. 

15 Memorandum dated Dec. 1944, Box 1, fd 4 (Item 4). 

16 Memorandum dated Feb., Apr. 1944, Box 10, fd 6. 


Chapter 10 

apostles. As I remember, his reply was that there was no reason why 
they should be excluded or not appointed if they were acceptable 



Thus, four of the seven presidents of the Church have ap- 
pointed their young sons to the apostleship. Brigham Young, Jr., 
died before he reached the final step, and the rest died or were re- 
moved much sooner, with the exception of Joseph Fielding Smith. 
His brother, Hyrum, died before he reached forty-six. John W. Tay- 
lor was excommunicated, and Owen Woodruff died in the prime 
of life at thirty-two. It is also pertinent that the three presidents 
who did not appoint sons to the Twelve had no chance to do so, ex- 
cept President Snow who was credited nevertheless with the desire 
to do so. President Grant has no son and the Prophet Joseph did 
not have one old enough. How can one resist concluding from this 
that human nature asserts itself in the action of the best of men, 
and that the Lord did not want any of these sons to be president? 
And is it not a warning to future presidents not to appoint sons in 
their early youth unless they are sure of their justification and that 
they are not following sinful thinking and selfish reasoning? 

President Grant was selected when he was twenty-five. While 
his father had been a real light in the Church and a power therein, 
Heber, at that time, was the son of a poor widow whom he says 
earned her bread with her needle and thread. But the Lord had a 
real work for him to do. Though so delicate in health that the life 
insurance companies would not sell him life insurance, he has 
fulfilled his great mission and still functions as president at eighty- 
eight. He, too, was not a great preacher of doctrine, yet he bears 
a greater and more impressive testimony of the divinity of Mor- 
monism than any other living man. It is his most distinguishing 
accomplishment. At the same time he is a great mixer, a friend and 
associate of practical businessmen of the highest order, politicians, 
in fact men of every class from the humblest to the greatest. He is 
unique in his apparent fitness and unfitness, but withal success as 

17 Memorandum dated Dec. 1944, Box 1, fd 4 (Item 4). Of the sixty-four Mor- 
mon apostles who had served up to the time of Moyle’s writing, thirty-eight were born 
after the organization of the church in 1830. Of that number, fifteen, or nearly 40 per- 
cent, were the sons of general authorities. Additionally, several others were grandsons 
or related otherwise to general authorities. 

Observations on the Inheritance of Church Leadership 

a President of the Church. I have seen him in important Church 
meetings with pencil and paper on his knee figuring I am sure on 
finance when the Church service was on, and he would still not 
miss the good things. He is a fine mixture of business, finance, and 
spirituality . 18 

President Grant more than any other has gone out of the old 
line leadership for his selection of apostles during his long leader- 
ship. Among his numerous selections to the Quorum of the Twelve 
are only two sons of apostles, Richard R. Lyman and Joseph F. Mer- 
rill. The former, the son of the president of the Quorum, Francis 
M. Lyman, fell from grace most unfortunately and was removed 
from the Church. He had been a university dean, notable engineer, 
and a real fine, capable man whom I personally liked notwithstand- 
ing his more than one weakness. I deeply deplored his failure . 19 

Among the Brethren 

I do not know very much in detail about Joseph Smith’s sons, 
but I do know very much about all the rest, and liked them all. I 
do not think I am unduly prejudiced against any one of them, had 
no differences or conflict with any. The same can be said so far as 
my knowledge goes of the grandsons. My knowledge of them has 
diminished as time passes and they increase. 

I have seen much of all of the Utah leaders of the Church 
whose names stand out conspicuously for their accomplishments, 
except that most brilliant writer, Parley P. Pratt. I also have no 
personal recollection of Amasa Lyman or Ezra T. Benson. I only 
remember seeing Charles C. Rich. He impressed me because he 
was so tall and manly in appearance. His son, Ezra, a distinguished 
surgeon, reminded me most of him. Elder Rich was a man of fine 
presence and poise, and had good judgment. 

Matthias F. Cowley, a nephew of President Taylor, was made 
an apostle at the age of thirty-nine, and then followed the course 

18 Memorandum dated Dec. 1944, Box 1, fd 4 (Item 4). 

19 Memorandum dated Sept. 1944, Box 1, fd 1. See Sessions, “View of James 
Henry Moyle,” pp. 138-40. See also D. Michael Quinn, “The Mormon Hierarchy, 1832- 
1932: An American Elite,” Ph D. diss., Yale University, 1976. Quinn revised his disser- 
tation into a two-volume study published in 1995 and 1997 by Signature Books (Salt 
Lake City): The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power and The Mormon Hierarchy: Exten- 
sions of Power. Quinn’s work would have been of great interest to Moyle. 


Chapter 10 

of his cousin, John W. Taylor, to excommunication. Matt, as he 
was generally and affectionately called, was a real Christian who 
would have endured martyrdom for his faith as freely as any man 
I ever knew. I always regarded him as the nearest model of a real 
Latter-day Saint of all the boys I knew. We lived in adjoining wards 
and I speak from personal knowledge. He was also a most pleasing 
and impressive speaker, and must have made many converts to the 
Church in his long and active missionary efforts. But he lost his 
balance, religious equilibrium, and sound reasoning over the 
burning issue of polygamy. I thought he had gone to seed on the 
subject. There can be no doubt, however, that his urge for wives 
for himself and others was not sensual but religious. 

George F. Richards was made an apostle at forty-five in 1906. 
He is a son of Franklin D. Richards by a plural wife, and was reared 
in Centerville or Farmington in farm surroundings. Like his father 
he is substantial, steady-going, deserving, slow of speech, deliber- 
ate but spiritually minded. He has a rather monotonous tone of 
voice which is not displeasing, not sparkling, and not especially at- 
tractive. He does not awaken or arouse enthusiasm, but emits logi- 
cal reasoning in a plain way. He was doubtlessly selected because 
he was good and deserving, but with nothing very outstanding to 
his credit. His half brothers, sons of the first wife, Franklin S. and 
C. C., as he was called, were each men of much more than ordinary 
calibre, both successful lawyers, though not college-bred. They 
picked up the law at home as they went along in the ordinary voca- 
tions of life. Both were devoted Church members, the first the lead- 
ing Church attorney, and their mother was a dominating, clever, 
and attractive woman living in the city of Ogden. Yet they were 
passed by for a more obscure, farm-reared son who was less quali- 
fied as a public speaker. Some thought, including the writer, that 
the plural wife son was preferred because he was born and reared 
in polygamy. He, too, was in harmony with the leadership of the 
Church in all things including politics; Joseph F. Smith was so vio- 
lently Republican that not a few thought it influenced Richards to 
some extent while Franklin S. and C. C. were pronounced Demo- 
crats and stood by their guns. My own thought on the subject was 
that politics did cut some figure and that being a polygamous son 
did also. The essential and most dominating requirement of an 
apostle was always to be in harmony with his quorum and the First 


Observations on the Inheritance of Church Leadership 

Presidency. At all events, Franklin S. and C. C. (from the intellec- 
tual standpoint) seemed better qualified and their standing in the 
Church was unquestioned and such is still the opinion of the two 
now as their lives close in comparative obscurity. Franklin S. distin- 
guished himself in his old age as president of the high priests’ quo- 
rum of the Ensign Stake. His children, however, all left the Church, 
though his wife was a very prominent worker in the Church and a 
fine Christian lady. 20 

George A. Smith was a counselor to Brigham Young. He was 
an immense, imposing man of fine intellect and influence, a real 
leader who was honored with the appointment of his big, whole- 
some son, John Henry, to the apostleship. John Henry was a 
natural leader, a man of unusual force and good mind. He became 
second counselor to Joseph F. Smith, a cousin of some degree, but 
he died very soon after. His son, George Albert, was also made an 
apostle. He distinguished himself as a Church worker and leader 
in the YMM1A and won his spurs on his own merit. He was a most 
likeable young man, with good ability and one of the best mixers 
in the leadership of the Church, yet highly spiritual. He manifested 
it more conspicuously than does President Grant, who does not 
have so naturally the spiritual nature. George Albert, as he is 
generally called, is a director of several important business corpo- 
rations, but I always thought that was due to his popularity 
generally, and a desire on the part of Church leaders to increase 
the small income he received from the Church. 

Prophets to Come 

George Albert is an exceptionally loveable man. He has trav- 
eled extensively, especially in connection with the Boy Scout 
movement in which he has distinguished himself and has been 
greatly honored by the national organization. The Church wisely 
and early made Boy Scouting a real feature of the work of its 
YMMIA and George Albert its leader. While he is not a great 
preacher or unusual intellect, he is fine in both. He is sufficiently 
intellectual and predominatingly spiritual, just the character the 
Lord could easily use if needed for the accomplishment of some 
great objective. I am impressed with that fact because of the 

20 Memorandum dated Feb., Apr. 1944, Box 10, fd 6. 


Chapter 10 

possibility of his becoming President of the Church if he lived 
longer than President Grant. I do not think George Albert was ever 
strong like President Grant; he is very slender, and his health was 
never that of a strong man. Yet he keeps going with ups and downs 
of health. I cannot help but think there is a providence in his 
continued life, and that there was the same in the shorter life of 
the favored sons to whom I have referred and who seemed to have 
a better prospect of life. I would say that President McKay, even 
in his poor health, is being preserved to be President of the 
Church. George F. Richards comes first, but he is in his eighties 
and also not in the best of health. While he is a good and capable 
man, he does not seem to be well-fitted for the presidency, for his 
experience (while extensive) is not comparable with that of Smith 
or McKay. Just as I did not ever think that Rudger Clawson or Reed 
Smoot would become president, so do 1 not think Richards will, 
though he is but two slender lives from it. But again, man proposes 
and God disposes, and he might have a work for George F. to do. 
He is a highly spiritual man and was reared in the largest and most 
exemplary family of any man I know; the Richards family is most 
numerous in Church prominence next only to the Smiths.' 1 

It seems clear to me that I would not make such (as it seems to 
me) grievous mistakes and that fitness, merit, and the inspiration 
of the Lord alone would govern my choices. It is clear that I should 
not say whether the inspiration of the Lord governed it or not, for 
that is rather left to others whose responsibility to the Lord is at 
stake. I can only speak and act for myself, but I can wonder whether 
one such as myself would act selfishly in such an important matter 
if the responsibility was mine. I believe I would not, but do not 
know. It is certain that God only does know. I do know that in the 
Biblical days in Israel, official leadership was inherited, but not al- 
ways. The theory there seems to be clear, that such honors and 
powers are legitimate subjects of inheritance or have been with the 
approval of the Lord. Another thing has impressed me, namely 
that recognized greatness is partially due to our remoteness from 
it. The closer we get to great men the more they appear to be like 
other men. In response to this fact and in their vanity, many seek to 
make it difficult to get into their presence and have intercourse 

21 Memorandum dated Dec. 1944, Box 1, fd 4 (Item 4). 

Observations on the Inheritance of Church Leadership 

with them, so formalities and obstacles to reach them are created. 
That is not a weakness in President Heber J. Grant. His simplicity 
and frankness is charming to me. Up to very recent years you could 
walk in on him unannounced. There are, however, practical objec- 
tions to that as visitors become more numerous and time more im- 
portant. I cannot resist, however, thinking how charming the lack 
of pretense was in President Grant before J. Reuben Clark became 
his counselor." 

A Hunger for Power 

What I would make clear if I could is that real great prophets 
of God are after all mere human beings with all the weaknesses of 
humans, and that their efforts to favor their own were merely 
unauthorized, unapproved excrescences, that could not be made 
realizations. And thus by death or otherwise, little came from the 
unauthorized action. 2 ’ 

The hunger for power grew in the Roman Catholic Church un- 
til it dominated and even humiliated kings and emperors, however 
mighty. The empire was made the tool of the Church and in mod- 
ern times the state its servant to the extent of a union of church and 
state. As I understand it, that was true of the English Church and 
would now be even in this enlightened age if the power existed in 
America. The Church is “by divine right” placed above all human 
institutions including the state, and the doctrine of infallibility in 
its leadership persists in the Catholic Church and to a large extent 
in that of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Wherever 
the Church has had its own way there has been either dominance 
of church over the state and in modern times a union of church 
and state wherever it was possible (and it was so in Utah). I hope I 
will not be misunderstood in this connection. I do not object to the 
course pursued politically in early Utah. It was infinitely more 
Christian than the narrowness of that which the sectarian churches 
would have had. The leadership of the Latter-day Saints is today 
very different in many important respects from what it was in my 
youth. Then we had in the territory of Utah a very complete union 
of church and state. That, however, was an apparent necessity or at 

22 Memorandum dated Sept. 1944, Box 1, fd 1. 

23 Memorandum dated Feb., Apr. 1944, Box 10, fd 6. 


Chapter 10 

all events a wise policy, but it provided a fertile field for the growth 
of power, which though exercised with much wisdom did develop 
dictatorial power. Some of the best minds in the territory became 
little czars in their limited fields; they were common men otherwise 
of the finest character, even otherwise benevolent. So none of us 
has the right to be the judge of our brother or president. 

In my youth it was next to a high crime to say anything against 
or disparaging of a Church leader. The rule was daily taught to fol- 
low your religious file leader and do what he directed. On the 
whole it worked splendidly, but there were many who did not fol- 
low the admonition. It seems inherent in man to want to expose 
the weakness or apparent weakness of others and not see the beam 
in his own eye while magnifying the mote in a brother’s eye. I have 
often found myself in the latter class, but as I get older I am grati- 
fied to think there is less of it in me than there was formerly. I find 
too much of good in all to justify uncharitable criticism. Most ad- 
verse criticism is uncharitable and a real crime against virtue and 
justice. It is a pity we cannot live longer and do better as we live 
longer, and see the folly of narrowness, bitterness, and sin. I won- 
der how free I am from what I dislike so much and condemn in oth- 
ers. I feel sure I am getting away from it. As I put away the struggle 
for a place in the sun and content myself more with what I have, 
and seek more to make my last days more virtuous and useful for 
others, I feel less of selfishness and more of love, justice, and ap- 
proach to the divine. As a matter of fact, I wonder if it is wise to 
point out as I have done herein the weaknesses in the men I honor, 
respect, and follow so generally— men for whom I would be willing 
to suffer and make great sacrifice. Myjustification is that the truth 
should be known and that error should be exposed and corrected. 
Covering up error and wrong-doing encourages it, while exposure 
restrains and discourages it. I would have my readers know that in 
the leadership of the Church I have found men I believed were in- 
spired of God as far as the Lord could inspire them and still give to 
them their free agency to commit error if they would, and that all 
men irrespective of their places in the Church continue to be hu- 
man and subject to all weakness of human nature, especially where 
selfish interest is involved. It is easy to see things the way you want 
them and so it is with the highest in office, and they too frequently 
308 act accordingly and yield to the human desires of their heart. If the 

Observations on the Inheritance of Church Leadership 

Church leaders are viewed only from their official actions (which 
become the actions of the Church approved by the Church in Gen- 
eral Conference) all can follow them with safety, and do otherwise 
with great unsafety. 

Mormon Democrat: A Concluding Statement 

Politics is the one and only subject of my difference with the 
Church itself through its highest leadership. But God has given me 
and all men the freedom of differing with the individual views and 
positions taken by the leaders of the Church, however much they 
may be in accord among themselves. It is not until action is taken 
by the Church that its members are bound. This, of course, is not 
in accord with the position expressed by so many that Latter-day 
Saints are led by inspired men in all things. Many now take that 
position, but I repeat that it is not the prerogative, according to 
that leadership itself, to act as ecclesiastical leaders in politics, or 
to undertake as such leaders to lead or direct what Church subor- 
dinates shall do in politics. On the contrary, by their own solemn 
and formal declarations it is not their duty to exercise ecclesiastical 
control in politics, but rather for the Church members to follow 
their own convictions therein. If that is kept in mind, differences 
with Church leaders in politics are not violations of religious duty. 
Fundamentally, the Latter-day Saints believe that the Church is the 
Kingdom of God, and that we are a part of the Church and 
Kingdom of God on earth. That puts Latter-day Saints in the same 
position as Roman Catholics in saying that the Church is superior 
to all earthly organizations. But it is my contention that in earthly 
affairs it is our duty to give unto Caesar that which is due Caesar, 
and that Latter-day Saints must honor and obey the laws of the 
land and in this country its divine Constitution, which prohibits a 
union of church and state, and demands obedience to laws enacted 
thereunder even if it means discontinuance of the practice of a 
fundamental law of the Church. This means complete obedience 
to its laws even though in conflict with the laws of the Church. It 
means that or leave the country, or live in prison and do nothing . 24 

24 Memorandum dated Jan. 1945, Box 12, fd 1. 




The information in this biographical appendix, designed to aid the 
reader in identifying those individuals mentioned in the memoirs, 
was drawn primarily from the following sources: obituaries in the 
Salt Lake Tribune, Deseret News, and New York Times; Biographical 
Record of Salt Lake City and Vicinity (Chicago: National Historical 
Record Co., 1902); Ralph V. Chamberlin, The University of Utah: A 
History of Its First Hundred Years, 1850-1950 (Salt Lake City: Univer- 
sity of Utah Press, 1960); Dean C. Jessee, ed., Letters of Brigham 
Young to His Sons (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1974); Noble 
War rum, ed., Utah Since Statehood, Historical and Biographical, 4 
vols. (Salt Lake City: S. J. Clarke, 1919); materials in the Family 
History Library of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 
Salt Lake City, Utah; Orson F. Whitney, History of Utah, 4 vols. (Salt 
Lake City: George Q. Cannon and Sons, 1892-1904); The National 
Cyclopedia of American Biography (New York: James T. White and 
Co., 1891); Allen Johnson, ed ., Dictionary of American Biography, 11 
vols. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1964); Andrew Jenson, 
Latter-day Saints Biographical Encyclopedia, 4 vols. (Salt Lake City: 
Deseret News, 1936); Frank Esshom, Pioneers and Prominent Men of 
Utah (Salt Lake City: Utah Pioneers Book Publishing Co., 1913); 
Lawrence R. Flake, Mighty Men of Zion: General Authorities of the Last 


Biographical Appendix 

Dispensation (Salt Lake City: Karl D. Butler, 1974); and Who’s Who 
in America (Chicago: A. N. Marquis Company, 1899-1973). 

ADAMS, ORVAL W. (1884-1968), noted Utah banker, was elected presi- 
dent of the American Bankers Association in 1937 where he gained 
notoriety with his anti-New Deal statements. In addition to numerous 
corporation directorships, he served as president and board chairman of 
Zions First National Bank for eleven years. 

ALLEN, CLARENCE E. (1852-1932), came to Utah from Ohio in 1881 to 
teach in the Salt Lake Academy. After engaging in mining, he entered 
politics in 1888, being elected to the legislature as a liberal. Following the 
division of the Liberal Party on national party lines, Allen was among a 
group that refused to go along. In 1892 he ran against the Democratic 
and Republican candidates for Congress after which he finally left the 
dissipating Liberal Party and became a Republican. He was elected to 
Congress in 1895 and took his seat as the first Representative from the 
State of Utah. He was a staunch silverite and was defeated for a full term 
in 1896 by William H. King. He later moved to California where he died. 

ANDERSON, JOHN M. (1912-69), a missionary from Logan, Utah, served 
under Moyle in the Eastern States. He was a leader in the effort to use 
radio as a missionary tool. He later moved to Wyoming where he became 
one of that state’s prominent businessmen. 

ANDERSON, W. F. (1823-1903), prominent Salt Lake City physician, was 
a Virginian who joined the LDS church in 1856 in California. He sub- 
sequently became president of the first Utah medical society and served 
as division surgeon of the Nauvoo Legion. Moyle knew him as an early 
owner of a cabin at Brighton. 

ANGELL, TRUMAN O. (1810-87), was the chief architect on the Salt Lake 
temple and other important Utah structures. Born in Rhode Island, he 
was the brother of Mary Ann Angell Young, Brigham Young's wife. 

ASHTON, BRIGHAM W. (1858-1912), young Moyle’s “best friend,” was 
superintendent of the Granite School District at the time of his death. He 
was first a stone-cutter and then taught in the LDS ward schools. In 1900 
he became Salt Lake County superintendent of schools and head of the 
Granite District when the county system divided in 1905. 

ASHTON, CORA LINDSAY (1864-1960), whom Moyle baptized in North 
Carolina, came to Utah in 1881 where she became the second wife of 
Edward T. Ashton, later bishop of the Twenty-fourth Ward. 


ASHTON, EDWARD (1821-1904), came from Wales to Utah in 1852. He 

Biographical Appendix 

settled in the Fifteenth Ward where his three oldest sons became young 
Moyle’s favorite companions. After the coming of the railroad, Ashton 
worked on the Ogden and Salt Lake line for twenty-five years. 

ASHTON, EDWARD T. (1855-1923), was one of Moyle’s boyhood friends 
in the Fifteenth Ward. He later served as bishop of the Twenty-fourth 

ASHTON, JEDEDIAH W. (1856-191 1), Moyle’s boyhood friend, went to 
work for the Union Pacific Railroad at the age of fourteen and then 
became head machinist for Silver Brothers in Salt Lake City. He was also 
well-known for his talents and abilities in music. 

BAKER, NEWTON D. (1871-1937), a Cleveland lawyer, was U.S. Secretary 
of War during the Wilson administration. He was a potent force in Ohio 
Democratic politics for many years, though his service in the War Depart- 
ment was his only major sortie into public life. His management of the 
American war effort during World War I gained for Baker the respect 
and admiration of the nation. 

BAMBERGER, CLARENCE (1886-1984), graduated as a mining engineer 
from Cornell University in 1908 and did extensive postgraduate work in 
Berlin and Paris. Returning to the western states, he operated numerous 
mines in Utah, Colorado, and Nevada. He later chaired the Bamberger 
Investments Corporation. Throughout his life, Bamberger devoted him- 
self to civic affairs both on the state and national level, and in 1972 was 
given the “Giant of Our City” award by the Salt Lake City Council. 

BAMBERGER, SIMON (1847-1926), was born in Germany of Jewish 
parents and immigrated to the United States in 1861. He eventually came 
to Ogden where he opened a hotel and then built an interurban electric 
rail line between Ogden and Salt Lake City. After moving to Salt Lake 
City, he was elected to the legislature and eventually elected governor in 

BARLOW, JAMES A., was a schoolmate of Moyle and later his missionary 
companion in the Southern States. Barlow’s subsequent life history is 

BARNES, WILLIAM (1817-97), was an English stonemason who joined 
the LDS church in Nauvoo in 1841 . After working on the Nauvoo temple, 
he immigrated to Utah in 1854 where he went to work on Temple Block. 
He was then called to work on the temple at St. George, Utah, prior to 
leaving for a mission to Great Britain in 1879. 


Biographical Appendix 


BARNUM, CHARLES, was a childhood friend of Moyle. Details of his life 
are obscure. 

BARTON, JOSEPH (c. 1850-1932), was the Davis County attorney who 
accompanied Moyle on the reform school tour of the East in 1888. He 
practiced law in Kaysville for many years before moving to Oregon. 

BASKIN, R. N. (1837-1918), graduated from the Harvard law school and 
came to Utah in 1865. A perennial candidate for Congress on the Liberal 
Ticket in the 1870s and 1880s, he was elected mayor of Salt Lake City in 
1891. Baskin was known for his outspoken anti-Mormonism, and though 
his administration of the city government was comparatively progressive, 
he never sustained a substantial popularity. 

BEAN, WILLARD W. (1868-1949), lived for twenty-four years in the 
Joseph Smith home in Palmyra, New York, serving as guide and caretaker 
at the site. He also wrote several missionary tracts for the church. 

BECK, JONAS N. (1838-1907), was born in England. After joining the 
church and coming to Utah, he settled in Cache County where he farmed 
and worked as a painting contractor. He served in the Southern States 
Mission with Moyle in 1879. 

BENSON, EZRA T. (1811-69), was baptized in Illinois in 1840. He was 
ordained an apostle in 1846 after several missions in the East and then 
accompanied Brigham Young to Salt Lake Valley in 1847. After several 
more missions, he was called to preside in Cache Valley where he served 
until his death. He also held various territorial posts including several 
terms in the legislature. 

BERRY, WILLIAM S. (1838-84), was killed by a mob in Lewis County, 
Tennessee, along with fellow missionary John H. Gibbs and two local 

BISHOP, FRANCIS M. (1843-1933), was a Civil War veteran who follow- 
ing his graduation from Illinois Wesleyan University served as chief 
topographer on John W. Powell’s Colorado River expedition. He then 
visited Salt Lake City intending a brief visit but was offered a position on 
the faculty of Morgan’s Commercial College. As professor of natural 
science, he then taught at the University of Deseret ( 1 873-77). Bishop later 
engaged in mining and entered politics holding several judicial positions. 

BLACK, JF.REMIAH S. (1810-83), of Pennsylvania was admitted to the bar 
in his home state in 1830 and rose to the state supreme court. In 1857 
Buchanan appointed him U.S. Attorney General and later Secretary of 
State (1860). Black retired to Pennsylvania in 1861, where he became a 

Biographical Appendix 

respected elder statesman espousing many causes, including fair treat- 
ment for the Mormons. Though an ardent Camphellite, Black became 
one of the East’s most vocal spokesmen for Mormon rights. 

BLAINE, JAMES G. (1830-93), was born in Pennsylvania and studied law 
in Philadelphia. After a brief career in journalism which took him to 
Maine, he entered politics as a Republican and was elected to Congress 
in 1863 where he became Speaker in 1869. Blaine was elected to the 
Senate in 1876 and served there until James Garfield appointed him 
Secretary of State in 1881, but resigned from the cabinet upon the 
president’s assassination. He was then nominated for the presidency in 
1884 but lost to Grover Cleveland. Returning to the State Department 
with the election of Benjamin Harrison in 1888, Blaine had his greatest 
term of public service and exerted the most influence upon American life 
attracting public attention to foreign policy as never before with his Pan 
American Union and reciprocity ideas. 

BLISS, CHARLES (1859-1933), accompanied Moyle to the Southern 
States Mission in 1879. Following his mission, Bliss homesteaded in 
eastern Nevada. 

BOONE, EDWARD, married Moyle’s great-aunt from England, and the 
young man visited them in St. Louis on his way to the Southern States 
Mission in 1879. 

BOURNE, HELEN KIMBALL WHITNEY (1862-1927), corresponded 
with Moyle during his mission and years at law school. She was the 
daughter of Horace K. Whitney and Helen Mar Kimball. 

BOWEN, ALBERT E. (1875-1953), was Reuben Clark’s former law part- 
ner. He became an apostle in 1937 and was known for his Republican 

BOWMAN, JOHN F. (1880-1960), a son-in-law of Joseph F. Smith, dis- 
placed Moyle as counsel in the Consolidated Wagon and Machine Com- 
pany in 1914. Bowman had studied law at the University of Chicago. He 
served as mayor of Salt Lake City from 1928 to 1932. 

BOYLE, HENRY G. (1824-1908), joined the Mormon church in Virginia 
in 1843. Following service on the Mormon Battalion, Boyle arrived in 
Utah in 1847. He served seven missions to the Southern States and was 
president of the mission from 1875-78. 

BRAIN, CHARLES J. (1857-1933), was a well-known Utah contractor 
whose works included the Lafayette School. He served with Moyle in the 
Southern States Mission in the early 1880s. 


Biographical Appendix 


BROSSARD, EDGAR B. (1889-1980), of French-Canadian extraction, 
served as president of the Swiss-German Mission (1912-14) and later of 
the New England (1959) and French (1959-62) missions. From 1925 to 
1959, Brossard was U.S. Tariff Commissioner, and was among the first 
branch presidents in Washington and the first president of the Washing- 
ton, D.C., Stake. Moyle rented an apartment from him during his second 
stay in the Capitol. 

BROWN, ARTHUR (1843-1906), born in Michigan, graduated from the 
law school of the university of Ann Arbor in 1864. After practicing for 
fifteen years in Michigan, he came to Utah where he was elected to the 
Senate in 1896, serving a term that expired a year later. He was a delegate 
to the Republican conventions in 1896 and 1900 and then failed in an 
attempt to gain the senatorial nomination in 1901. Noted for his philan- 
dering, Brown was shot to death in Washington, D.C., by a former 

BROWN, D. GLENN, was one of Moyle’s missionaries in the Eastern 
States in the early 1930s. Brown took a leading role in the media innova- 
tions of which Moyle was so proud. 

BRYAN, WILLI AM JENNINGS (1860-1925), studied law in his home state 
of Illinois and practiced there for a time before moving to Nebraska in 
1887. He was elected to Congress in 1890 and then ran unsuccessfully for 
the Senate in 1894. Subsequently becoming a newspaper editor, Bryan 
joined the Chautauqua lecture circuit where he staunchly advocated the 
free coinage of silver. He quickly rose to prominence on the strength of 
his oratory and was nominated by the Democrats and the Populists for 
the presidency in 1896. Defeated in the election, he ran again in 1900 and 
1908 also unsuccessfully. Woodrow Wilson appointed him Secretary of 
State in 1912, but Bryan resigned in 1915. The “Great Commoner” then 
retired to his law practice gaining national attention as the defender of 
the Bible in the Scopes (monkey) trial in Tennessee against Clarence 

BURT, ANDREW (1828-83), was baptized in Scotland in 1848. After his 
arrival in Salt Lake City in 1851, Burt became heavily involved in military 
affairs which led to his election as chief of police in 1 862 and city marshal 
in 1876. He was also the bishop of the Twenty-first Ward. He was killed 
by a black itinerant who was immediately lynched in a shed behind City 

BURTON, HOSEA M. (1858-1920), was one of Moyle’s childhood ac- 
quaintances in the Fifteenth Ward. The remainder of his life in Salt Lake 
City is obscure. 

Biographical Appendix 

BURTON, JOHN H. (1857-87), a son of Robert T. Burton, studied 
architecture in the East and had just established his firm in Salt Lake City 
when he was murdered at the age of thirty by a “whiskey man” who 
apparently mistook him for a detective. 

BURTON, LAFAYETTE G. (1860-1934), a prominent Utah mining and 
railroad engineer, was construction engineer of the Utah Eastern Rail- 
road. He also built the Salt Lake City street rail line to Fort Douglas. 

BURTON, ROBERT T. (1821-1907), a Canadian who came to Utah in 
1848, was active in the leadership of the territorial militia in Indian 
campaigns and during the Utah War. His numerous public offices in- 
cluded constable, deputy marshal, sheriff, assessor, collector of internal 
revenue, city councilman, territorial legislator, and regent of the Univer- 
sity of Deseret. After a term as bishop of the Fifteenth Ward, he became 
(1884) first counselor to Presiding Bishop William B. Preston. 

BUSSEL, JAMES (1805-84), known affectionately as “Daddy” in the Fif- 
teenth Ward, was baptized in England and came to Utah in 1853. He was 
an herbalist who practiced folk medicine among his neighbors. 

BUTLER, BENJAMIN F. (1818-93), studied law and was admitted to the 
Massachusetts bar in 1840. He was elected as a Democrat to the legislature 
in 1853 where he served until his election as general of militia at the 
outbreak of the Civil War. Butler’s career was then meteoric. In 1862 he 
took New Orleans and became its military governor, but his flamboyant 
and controversial administration shortly forced his removal. Following 
the war, he was elected to Congress as a Republican and lived lavishly in 
Washington until his defeat for reelecdon in 1875. He returned to 
Congress in 1878 as a Greenbacker, and by 1880 was back in the Demo- 
cratic Party. He tried unsuccessfully to gain the presidential nomination 
in 1884 then bolted the party and ran as the candidate of the Greenback 
Party. He garnered only a few thousand votes and died a decade later in 

BYWATER, GEORGE (1828-89), came to Utah in 1854 a convert to 
Mormonism from Wales. He lived in the Fifteenth Ward until 1868 when 
he moved to Utah County. James Moyle later purchased Bywater’s home 
for his second family. 

BYWATER, JOSEPH G. (1857-1931), a playmate of young Moyle in the 
Fifteenth Ward, went to work for the Utah Central Railroad at the age of 
fourteen and later became an engineer on the Denver and Rio Grande. 
He also served two terms in the legislature and was active in union affairs, 
the Cambrian Society, and the Masonic Order. 


Biographical Appendix 


CAHOON, ANDREW (1824-1900), born in Ohio, came to Utah in an early 
migration. After marrying three wives, he left the LDS church and became 
known as the “apostate bishop of Murray.” He had nineteen children. 

CAINE, ANNIE HOOPER (1865-1946), daughter of William H. Hooper, 
introduced Moyle to Alice Dinwoodey. Annie later married Joseph E. 
Caine who was for many years secretary of the Salt Lake City chamber of 

CAINE, JOHN T. (1829-191 1), came from the Isle of Man and joined the 
LDS church in New York in 1847. In Utah he taught school and became 
a member of the Deseret Dramatic Association. After a mission to Hawaii, 
he joined Brigham Young’s staff as a clerk. He also served terms as city 
recorder, regent of the University of Deseret, and Salt Lake Stake high 
councilman. His most important role in Utah history came as he served 
in five consecutive sessions of Congress following his election as Utah’s 
delegate in 1883. 

CALLIS, CHARLES A. (1865-1947), was baptized as a youngster in 
England and came to Utah in 1875. After becoming a lawyer, he served 
several missions for the LDS church and in 1906 became president of the 
Southern States Mission. He served in that capacity for twenty-eight years 
until his call to the apostleship in 1933. 

CANNELL, MARGARET ANNA (see Margaret Anna Canned Moyle) 

CANNON, ABRAHAM H. (1859-96), a son of George Q. Cannon, was 
ordained an apostle in 1889 at the age of thirty following seven years on 
the First Council of Seventy. His early death was evidence to Moyle that 
his young calling to the Quorum of the Twelve had been the result of 
human folly. 

CANNON, ANGUS M. (1834-1915), was president of the Salt Lake Stake 
from 1876 to 1904. A brother to George Q. Cannon, he came to Utah as 
a boy in 1849. His work apart from the LDS church consisted of farming, 
stockraising, and some business enterprises. As president of the Salt Lake 
Stake, which encompassed Salt Lake, Davis, Tooele, and three other 
counties, Cannon was one of the most powerful men in Utah during 
pre-statehood years serving also as chairman of the Peoples Party. 

CANNON, FRANK J. (1859-1933), a son of George Q. Cannon, left the 
LDS church and became a bitter apostate. A journalist, Cannon worked 
on several newspapers in Utah and became a Republican while reporting 
for the San Francisco Chronicle. He settled in Ogden, editing the Standard, 
then ran for Congress in 1892, was defeated, ran again in 1894, and was 
elected. In January 1896 he was elected U.S. Senator as a Republican but 

Biographical Appendix 

soon switched parties in the silver controversy. He failed in his effort for 
reelection in 1899. Serving for a time as Democratic state chair, Cannon 
later returned to journalism writing anti-Mormon polemics aimed primar- 
ily at the interference of the church leadership in politics. 

CANNON, GEORGE M. (1861-1937), a son of Angus M. Cannon, spent 
his boyhood in the Fifteenth Ward. He later became a teacher and then 
entered politics with his election as Salt Lake County recorder. In 1895 
he became chair of the Republican state committee and aspired in 1901 
to the U.S. Senate. 

CANNON, GEORGE Q. (1827-1901), joined the LDS church in England 
in 1840 and came to America in 1842. He became a journalist and edited 
at various times the Deseret News, Juvenile Instructor, Millennial Star, and 
Western Standard. He become an apostle in 1859, presided over the 
European Mission for a time, and then was appointed private secretary 
to Brigham Young. In the 1870s Cannon sat on the Democratic side in 
Congress as Utah’s delegate. He became a member of the First Presidency 
after the death of Brigham Young and served as such until his death. 
Following statehood, he aspired to the U.S. Senate as a Republican against 
Moses Thatcher. His role as intellectual and political head of the church 
was evident during these last years. 

CANNON, JOHN M. (1865-1917), a son of Angus M. Cannon, received 
his law degree from the University of Michigan in 1890. His father asked 
Moyle to take the young lawyer into his firm, ironic in the face of Angus’s 
earlier denunciation of Moyle for seeking a law degree. 

CANNON, JOSEPH J. (1877-1945), a son of George Q. Cannon, served 
as editor of the LDS Millennial Star for a short time after a mission to 
Sweden at the turn of the century. He then graduated from the University 
of Utah, engaged in banking and the canning business, and entered 
politics, being elected to the legislature in 1909 where he was active in the 
fight for prohibition in the state. Following a term as managing editor of 
the Deseret News, Cannon became president of the British Mission (1934- 
37) and then president of the Temple Square Mission of the church 

CARLTON, AMBROSE B., from Indiana, was a member of the Utah 
Commission during the first Cleveland administration. With John A. 
McClernand he submitted to the Union a report supporting Utah’s 
admission and praising the people of the territory and their institutions. 
Additional details of his life are comparatively obscure. 

CARVER, THOMAS NIXON (1865-1954), received his Ph.D. from Cor- 


Biographical Appendix 

nell in 1894. He began his career at Oberlin College as professor of 
economics but moved to Harvard in 1900 as professor of political econ- 
omy. Between 1904 and 1948, Carver published twenty books on political 
economy and human relations. He also studied the Mormon socio-eco- 
nomic system and extolled Brigham Young’s work in pioneer Utah. 

CHIPMAN, JAMES (1839-1922), came to Utah with the pioneers in 
September 1847. He grew up in Utah County and became involved in 
merchandising and banking. He was Utah’s first state treasurer and was 
involved in numerous capital investment ventures. 

CLARK, JOHN (1835-1908), was born in England where his fatherjoined 
the Mormon church. He arrived in Salt Lake City in 1851 and settled in 
the Fifteenth Ward. Following over twenty years on the Salt Lake City 
Council, Clark was elected mayor in 1897. He also served three terms in 
the legislature. Very successful in business, he was for many years assistant 
superintendent and treasurer of ZCMI. 

CLARK, JOSHUA REUBEN, JR. (1871-1961), counselor to LDS church 
presidents Heber J. Grant, George Albert Smith, and David O. McKay, 
was a noted international lawyer and Republican State Department func- 
tionary. Following his failure to get the Republican senatorial nomination 
in 1928, Clark became undersecretary of state and then ambassador to 
Mexico under Herbert Hoover. His conservative isolationism was classic, 
and his hatred for the New Deal spilled over into his church service 
causing a resurgence in the 1930s of attempts on the part of the Mormon 
leadership to control Utah politics. Despite Moyle’s great personal respect 
for Clark, the Democrat freely blamed him for the politicalism of the 
Grant administration. 

CLAWSON, HIRAM B. (1826-1912), joined the church and moved to 
Nauvoo in 1841. In Utah he became Brigham Young’s private secretary 
and managed the president’s private business affairs. After various busi- 
ness ventures including management of the Salt Lake Theater, Clawson 
took over management of ZCMI. He also served for many years as bishop 
of the Twelfth Ward. 

CLAWSON, RUDGER (1857-1943), witnessed the murder of his mission- 
ary companion, Joseph Standing, in Georgia in 1879. He also served three 
years in prison during the anti-polygamy crusade in the 1880s. Following 
service as president of the Box Elder Stake, he became an apostle in 1898. 
One of his wives, Alice Moyle’s half-sister, divorced him causing an 
estrangement between him and the Moyles. 

CLEVELAND, GROVER (1837-1908), born in New Jersey, grew up in 


Biographical Appendix 

New York where he became a devoted Democrat. He studied law and was 
admitted to the bar in 1859. In 1881 he was elected mayor of Buffalo and 
in 1882 governor of the state. His image of stubborn honesty quickly made 
him a leading contender for the White House. Though spurning Tam- 
many Hall, he was nominated for the U.S. presidency in Chicago in 1884 
on the second ballot and was subsequently elected. He lost in a bid for 
reelection in 1888 but succeeded in 1892. Cleveland gained Moyle’s praise 
as the president who signed Utah’s Enabling Act in 1895. 

CLIFT, FRANCIS D. (c. 1830-1914), known as “Dan,” was a pioneer real 
estate man in Salt Lake City. At one time Clift owned large sections of the 
city particularly on West Temple where he built the Clift House Hotel. 

COLTON, DON B. (1876-1952), succeeded Moyle as president of the 
Eastern States Mission in 1833 following an unsuccessful bid for Congress 
as a Republican in 1932. Prior to this, he had served as president of the 
Uintah Stake of the church. 

COOLIDGE, CALVIN (1872-1933), born in Vermont, rose through Mas- 
sachusetts Republican politics to the governorship in 1918. His forceful 
handling in that office of the portentous Boston police strike brought him 
the national attention that caused Warren Harding to choose him as a 
running mate in 1920. With the death of Harding in 1923, Coolidge 
became president and was subsequently elected to a full term in 1924. 
Following a lackluster administration, Coolidge retired in 1929 to private 
life in Boston. 

COSTIGAN, GEORGE P. (1870-1934), graduated from Harvard Univer- 
sity law school after which he practiced law in partnership with Moyle in 
Salt Lake City. He was subsequently appointed professor of law at North- 
western University, eventually becoming dean of the college of law at the 
University of Nebraska and then at the University of California. 

COWDERY, OLIVER (1806-50), one of the three witnesses to the Book 
of Mormon plates, was “Second Elder” in the LDS church and associate 
president with Joseph Smith. After several and prolonged disagreements 
with Smith, Cowdery was excommunicated in 1838 but rejoined the 
church ten years later. Just prior to his death in 1850, he visited David 
Whitmer in Missouri and restated his testimony of the Book of Mormon. 
Whitmer recounted this event in his interview with Moyle in 1885. 

COWLEY, MATTHEW (1897-1953), a son of Matthias Cowley, and hav- 
ing been an aide to Reed Smoot in Washington, became an apostle in 
1945. He served several missions in the Pacific and was known for his 

Biographical Appendix 


work among the Maoris of New Zealand. Cowley became a close friend 
to the Moyles during their last years in Utah. 

COWLEY, MATTHIAS F. (1858-1950), became an apostle in 1897 but 
resigned in 1905 because of the church abandonment of polygamy and 
was disfellowshipped. Restored to full membership in 1936, Cowley 
served a final mission for the church just prior to his death. 

COX, JAMES M. (1870-1957), was the first man ever elected governor of 
Ohio for three terms. Cox, publisher of a group of newspapers in Ohio, 
Georgia, and Florida, ran against Warren G. Harding for the U.S. presi- 
dency in 1920. His running mate was Franklin D. Roosevelt. 

CREER, FRANK B. (1907-93), married Moyle’s youngest daughter, Sara 
Virginia, in 1930. Creer, a graduate of Harvard Business School, was an 
executive and director of the Utah-Idaho School Supply Company in Salt 
Lake City in addition to various other business, civic, and religious 

CREER, SARA VIRGINIA MOYLE (1907-93), was Moyle’s last-born child. 
She was educated in Salt Lake City and Washington, D.C., and graduated 
from the University of Utah in 1930 after which she married Frank B. 
Creer. She served as president of the Salt Lake Central Stake Relief 

CUMMINGS, HOMER S. (1870-1956), Franklin Roosevelt's first Attorney 
General, was responsible for the plan to enlarge the Supreme Court then 
regularly blocking New Deal legislation. Cummings was also strong on 
penal reform and was a vigorous supporter of J. Edgar Hoover and the 
FBI. Cummings had been a successful Connecticut attorney. 

CUMMINGS, JAMES W. (1819-83), in whose home Moyle was ordained 
a Seventy, was baptized in Nauvoo, Illinois, in 1841 and, after several 
missions for the LDS church, arrived in Utah in 1851. He served in the 
legislature, on the Salt Lake City Council, and as county treasurer. He was 
known as one of the most active “home missionaries” in the valley. 

CUTLER, JOHN C. (1846-1928), defeated Moyle by a comfortable margin 
in the 1904 gubernatorial race in Utah. Cutler was an employee of Provo 
Woolen Mills and later was associated with several banks and insurance 
companies in Salt Lake City. His only elective positions prior to the 
governorship were terms as county clerk and clerk of the probate court. 

DANIELS, JOSEPHUS ( 1863-1948), U.S. Secretary of the Navy in World 
War I, ambassador to Mexico during the New Deal, and editor and 
publisher of a Raleigh, North Carolina, newspaper, was noted for his 

Biographical Appendix 

puritanical “Sunday School” administration of the navy and for his no- 
nonsense yet friendly dealings with Mexico during the oil expropriation 
crises of the late 1930s. He succeeded J. Reuben Clark in the Mexico City 

DARKE, SIDNEY W. (d. 1907), came to Utah from England in 1862. He 
was one of the first lawyers in Salt Lake City and at one time taught 
mathematics at the University of Deseret. 

DAVIS, JOHN W. (1873-1955), the unsuccessful Democratic candidate 
against President Coolidge in 1924, was a native of West Virginia but spent 
the bulk of his career as a constitutional lawyer in New York City. He was 
elected to Congress in 1910 and was then appointed U.S. Solicitor General 
in 1913. In 1918 he became ambassador to Great Britain serving there 
until 1921. His nomination in 1924 came after 102 ballots and a prolonged 
fight between William G. McAdoo and Alfred E. Smith. Later a bitter 
opponent of Franklin Roosevelt, Davis defected to the Republican Party. 

DEE, THOMAS D. (1844-1905), was born in Wales where his family 
became Mormons in 1856. They came to Utah in 1860 and settled in 
Ogden. Dee became a contractor and then engaged in the sugar business. 
By the turn of the century, he was director and executive of numerous 
business enterprises in northern Utah including the building and opera- 
tion of three railroads. He served in various political offices in Ogden and 
also in the legislature. The Mormon hospital in Ogden was named after 
him in response to his generous endowments and other civic activities. 

DF.NBY, EDWIN (1870-1929), U.S. Secretary of the Navy under Harding, 
approved the transfer of naval oil reserve administration to Interior 
Secretary Albert B. Fall. Fall then leased Wyoming and California reserves 
to private operators precipitating the so-called Teapot Dome Scandal. 
Denby was born in Indiana but entered politics in Michigan where he 
practiced law. He was also an executive in several Detroit motor 

DERN, GEORGE H. (1872-1936), was born and educated in Nebraska 
after which he came to Utah as a miner. He rose quickly to executive 
positions, and from 1915 to 1919 was general manager of the Tintic 
Milling Company. In 1914 he was elected to the state senate as a Democrat 
and served there until his election as governor in 1928. Franklin Roosevelt 
appointed him Secretary of War in 1933. He died in office. 

DINWOODEY, ALICE EVELYN (see Alice Evelyn Dinwoodey Moyle) 

DINWOODEY, HENRY (1825-1905), Moyle’s father-in-law, was an Eng- 
lish carpenter who became a Mormon in 1845 and sailed for America in 


Biographical Appendix 


1849. In 1850 he opened a small dry goods store in St. Louis and remained 
there until 1855 when he moved to Utah. Following the Utah War, he built 
a shop where he made furniture from native lumber. He continued to 
expand and by 1890 was one of the wealthiest businessmen in Utah, 
serving on numerous boards of directors and in various civic positions. 
He traveled widely, served a term in prison for polygamy, and contributed 
liberally to the church and charity. 

DOHENY, EDWARD L. (1856-1935), discovered one of the first oil fields 
in California and then expanded into Mexico where he built one of the 
greatest concentrated oil holdings of private capital in the world. He was 
indicted in 1924 for his part in the naval reserve lease scandal (Teapot 
Dome) but was acquitted. 

DOVER, JOSEPH R. (1823-1904), joined the Mormons in England in 
1847. He went to Australia in 1850 and finally to Utah in 1871 where he 
became chief assistant to Temple Block foreman James Moyle. He later 
worked on various stonecutting projects for Brigham Young and John 
Taylor. Assisting Willard Young, he also spent seven years building the 
locks at the Cascades in Oregon. 

DUNBAR, DAVID C. (1858-1938), graduated from the University of 
Deseret in 1878 and went to work on the Salt Lake Herald. After a period 
out of Utah, he returned to Salt Lake City where he engaged in business 
and became active in the Democratic Party. In 1919 Woodrow Wilson 
appointed Dunbar collector of internal revenue. He later returned to 
California but kept up a close friendship with Moyle until his death. 

DUNBAR, ELIZABETH (LIBBY) HOOPER, a youthful friend of Moyle, 
was a daughter of William H. Hooper. She subsequently married Moyle’s 
close friend, David C. Dunbar. 

DUNCANSON, MARY (1830-1911), joined the I.DS church in Scotland 
and came to Utah in 1866 with her husband, David. They settled in the 
Fifteenth Ward where she became the neighborhood midwife delivering 
nearly all of Moyle’s twenty-two brothers and sisters. 

ECCLES, HENRY, of the Fifteenth Ward was foreman of stonecutters on 
Temple Block prior to James Moyle. 

ECCLES, MARRINER S. (1890-1977), son of prominent Ogden business- 
man David Eccles, took over a portion of his father’s business interests in 
1913 and by the Great Depression had built a multimillion-dollar enter- 
prise. Eccles was steering his diversified banking and industrial interests 
through the Depression with minimal losses when he thereby attracted 
the attention of national political leaders. He was consequently appointed 

Biographical Appendix 

Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in 1934 and Federal Reserve Board 
Chairman in 1935. He remained the dominant figure in the Federal 
Reserve System until 1951 when he returned to private life and his 
ongoing business and civic interests. 

ELDREDGE, ALLIE (see Allie Eldredge Smoot) 

EVANS, DAVID (1852-1923), born in Lehi, Utah, attended the law school 
at the University of Michigan with Moyle in the 1880s. He was later law 
partner to George Sutherland and others in Utah County where he 
practiced law until his death. 

EVANS, JOHN HENRY (1872-1947), graduated from the University of 
Utah in 1906 and did graduate work at the University of California after 
which he became head of the English department at LDS University. A 
subsequent employee of the church, Evans wrote several books relating 
to Mormons and Mormonism including biographies of Joseph Smith, 
Charles C. Rich, and Moyle (unfinished). His Story of Utah was for many 
years the Utah history text book used in the public schools. 

FARLEY, JAMES A. (1888-1976), successful New York businessman and 
president of General Builders’ Supply Corporation. After service on 
various state commissions, Farley was appointed Postmaster General by 
Franklin Roosevelt in 1933 and served until 1940. As such, Farley was 
dispenser of patronage in the New Deal. Following his return to private 
life, he became head of the Coca Cola Export Company. 

FARR, AARON F. (1818-1907), was baptized in 1832 and reached man- 
hood during the Missouri and Illinois persecutions. Originally part of 
Brigham Young’s advance party in 1847, Farr was assigned to return east 
to meet Daniel Spencer’s company. After several missions, Farr moved to 
Ogden where he became a judge and held other public offices. He was 
father-in-law of Moses Thatcher and clashed with Moyle during the 
election of 1899 in the legislature when he charged that Moyle had 
conspired for the seal without openly campaigning for it. 

FAUST, H. J. (c. 1830-1904), better known as “Doc,” built and operated 
a livery stable on Second South. The U.S. District Court was held on its 
second floor for several years. Faust, an old mule skinner and mail station 
operator, later retired to California where he died. 

FERGUSON, FERGUS (1860-1927), graduated from the University of 
Michigan Law School where he associated with Moyle. Upon returning to 
Utah, Ferguson practiced law for a time and then contracted a chronic 
illness which severely curtailed his activities. 


Biographical Appendix 


FERGUSON, JEANNETTE SHARP (1861-1937), was a daughter ofjohn 
Sharp, the “railroad bishop.” She married Fergus Ferguson who attended 
the University of Michigan with Moyle. Because of the illness of her 
husband, she retired to California. 

FOLSOM, HARRIET AMELIA (see Harriet Amelia Folsom Young) 

FOLSOM, WILLIAM (1815-1901), one of James Moyle’s business associ- 
ates and a prominent architect in early Salt Lake City, was also the father 
of Amelia Young, plural wife of Brigham Young. He was baptized in 1840 
and established himself in Nauvoo as an architect and builder. After 
working on the temple there and after coming to Utah, he drew up the 
plans for the Salt Lake Tabernacle. Folsom worked on each temple and 
supervised construction at Manti. He designed additionally the old Salt 
Lake Theater and several other important Utah structures. 

FULLMER, EUGENE B. (1833-99), survived the Haun’s Mill Massacre in 
Missouri. After his arrival in Utah, Fullmer went to work on Temple Block 
(1853) and worked as a stonecutter on the temple until it was finished in 

GATES, THOMAS S. (1873-1948), practiced law for a time in Pennsylva- 
nia and then became an insurance executive. In 1921 he became a trustee 
of the University of Pennsylvania and in 1930 its president. Gates was a 
Republican but ardently supported Woodrow Wilson and the League of 
Nations. He also served in various advisory government positions during 
World War II. 

GIBBS, GEORGE F. (1846-1924), came to Utah from Wales in 1868. He 
worked as a secretary in the office of the First Presidency for nearly sixty 

GILLESPIE, PETER (1822-96), was intermittently James Moyle’s partner 
in the contracting business. He joined the LDS church in Scotland in 1842 
and arrived in Utah in 1853. In 1857 Brigham Young called him to work 
on the Salt Lake temple. It was during lulls in this service that he and the 
elder Moyle cut stone for the Union Pacific Railroad and built several 
buildings in Salt Lake City. 

GLASS, CARTER (1858-1946), known as father of the Federal Reserve 
System and dean of the Senate, served continually in the Congress from 
1902 until his death with the exception of a few months as Woodrow 
Wilson’s Secretary of the Treasury. From Virginia, he served as chair of 
the House Banking Committee and in the Senate as chair of the Appro- 
priations Committee. 

Biographical Appendix 

GORGAS, WILLIAM C. (1854-1920), born in Alabama, received his M.D. 
at Bellevue Medical College in New York in 1879 whereupon he was 
appointed to the Army Medical Corps. He subsequently gained national 
repute as a sanitarian during the yellow fever campaigns in Cuba and 
Panama around the turn of the century. With the outbreak of World War 
I, Gorgas became head of the Army Medical Service where he worked 
closely with Moyle who had charge of the Public Health Service. Gorgas 
was famous as “The man who made the Panama Canal possible” through 
his tireless work in combatting tropical diseases. 

GRANT, GEORGE D. (1808-76), brother of Jedediah M. Grant, was one 
of the original Utah pioneers and an early settler in the Bountiful area of 
Davis County. 

GRANT, HEBERJ. (1856-1945), was seventh president of the LDS church. 
An early success in business, he became president of the Tooele Stake at 
the age of twenty-four and an apostle in 1882. As church president, Grant 
emphasized financial growth and the Word of Wisdom. Though he called 
himself a Democrat, he rankled Moyle by openly attacking Franklin D. 
Roosevelt and the New Deal. 

GRANT, JEDEDIAH M. (1816-56), apostle and father of HeberJ. Grant, 
never served in the Quorum of the Twelve though he was counselor for 
two years to Brigham Young. After service in Zion’s Camp and several 
lengthy missions, two of them to North Carolina and Virginia, he came 
to Utah at the head of a company in 1847. At the time of his father’s death, 
Heber was only nine days old. 

GRIGGS, THOMAS C. (1845-1903), educator and musician, joined the 
LDS church in England in 1856 and emigrated the same year but did not 
come to Utah until 1861. He studied music under B. B. Messenger and 
George Careless and subsequently became a member of the Deseret 
Sunday School Union General Board and superintendent of Sunday 
schools in the Salt Lake Stake. 

HAGUE, FRANK (1874-1956), the perennial “boss” of New Jersey Demo- 
cratic politics and thirty-year mayor of Jersey City, was called the last of 
the old-time party bosses. Though at one time Hague controlled com- 
pletely the New Jersey party and had built a $2-million fortune from his 
activities, his power dwindled rapidly during his last years. His motto was 
simply “I am the Law.” 

HAINES, HARRY, taught school in the Fifteenth Ward, and, according 
to Moyle, moved to Murray where he became a well-known saloon keeper. 
Additional details of Haines’s life are obscure. 

Biographical Appendix 

HAMPTON, BENJAMIN (1837-1917), came to Utah with the Motion 
immigration of 1853. After a mission, he engaged in the niinimand 
smelting business. He then ran a mail station on the Bear River uril in 
association with William Godbe he became wealthy mining silver andjold 
in Utah and Nevada. 

HARDING, WARREN G. (1865-1923), was an Ohio journalist and lusi- 
nessman when he entered Republican politics in 1898 with his electicn to 
the state legislature. He was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1914 as a ool 
of the state party machine. As a Senator, Harding maintained a cultivited 
reputation as a safe conservative and charmed his way into the Republcan 
presidential nomination in 1920. Personally attractive and taking ad an- 
tage of public reaction to Wilsonian progressivism, Harding was eleited 
handily calling for a “return to normalcy.” His administration was ex- 
tremely pro-business and dull until the exposure of the Teapot Dime 
Scandal, most of which came forth after his merciful death in office. 

HARDING, WILLIAM P.G. (1864-1930), a prominent Alabama banker, 
became a member of the Federal Reserve Board in 1914 and its governor 
in 1916. He served until 1922 and chalked up an admirable record 
particularly as an efficient organizer. In 1923 he became governor of the 
Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and died in that office. 

HARKER, BENJAMIN (1852-84), served in the Southern States Mission 
with Moyle. He fell ill and returned to Utah early, but he never recovered. 

HARRIS, FISHER S. (1865-1909), born in Virginia, came to Utah while 
working for the railroad and afterwards became secretary of the Commer- 
cial Club. He was an avid promoter of Utah tourism and was known 
throughout the West for his oratorical abilities. 

HARRIS, MARTIN (1783-1875), was a prosperous New York farmer in 
1827 when he met Joseph Smith. He served for a time as scribe for Smith 
and underwrote publication of the Book of Mormon. In the summer of 
1829, he became one of the “three witnesses” to the Book of Mormon 
when he saw the golden plates in the hands of an angel. He remained high 
in the councils of the church until 1838 when Smith and his followers 
removed completely from Ohio to Missouri. Harris stayed behind but 
finallyjoined the Saints in Utah in 1870 where he died at Clarkston, Cache 
County. Moyle heard him preach in the Tabernacle shortly after his arrival 
in Salt Lake City. 


HASLAM,JOHN R. (1828-99), was baptized in England and came to Utah 
in 1853 where he worked for Brigham Young’s family until the colonizer’s 

Biographical Appendix 

death in 1877. During this period, he also served as clerk of the general 
tithing office. 

HAYES, RUTHERFORD B. (1882-93), was admitted to the Ohio bar in 
1845 after attending Harvard Law School. He entered politics in Cincin- 
nati in 1851 where he became an early Republican. He rose to the rank 
of major general during the Civil War before his election to Congress in 
1864 serving there until elected governor of Ohio in 1867. Hayes gov- 
erned astutely and was elevated to the U.S. presidency in 1877 after the 
famous “compromise” in the House elected him over popular vote winner 
Samuel Tilden. Though he was conscientious and hard-working, his one 
term was unspectacular. 

HENDERSON, WILLIAM, referred to as “judge” and gentile in Moyle’s 
memoirs, was not a prominent figure in Utah history despite Moyle’s 
praise of his abilities among notable Democrats. It is possible, however, 
that he was referring to Dr. William W. Henderson, a highly respected 
Utah educator and ardent Democrat, but Dr. Henderson (1879-1944) was 
a devoted Mormon. 

HERRICK, JOHN L. (1868-1960), was appointed guide and receptionist 
at the Church Administration Building in 1936 and was also bishop of the 
Twelfth-Thirteenth Ward. He had served as president of the Western 
States Mission (1908-19) and as a banker and insurance man in Ogden. 

HICKMAN, WILLIAM (1815-83), famous Utah outlaw and alleged chief 
Danite and destroying angel for Brigham Young, gained national atten- 
tion because of his role as avenger against troublesome gentiles and 
apostate Mormons. In reality, he was little more than a cattle rustler and 
a horse thief. He died ingloriously in Lander, Wyoming, of “diarrhoea.” 

HISLOP,JOHN (1855-1904), an English stonemason, worked with Moyle 
on the Union Pacific Railroad in the 1870s. He subsequently raised a large 
family in Huntsville, Utah. 

HOOPER, ANNIE (see Annie Hooper Caine) 

HOOPER, ELIZABETH (LIBBY) (see Elizabeth [Libby] Hooper Dunbar) 
HOOPER, HARRIET (HATTIE) (see Harriet [Hattie] Hooper Young) 
HOOPER, MARY (see Mary Hooper Jennings) 

HOOPER, WILLIAM H. (1813-82), a former merchant and Mississippi 
steamboat captain, represented Utah in four sessions of Congress begin- 
ning in 1859. He was a prominent banker and president of ZCMI. As a 


Biographical Appendix 

youth, Moyle was a common visitor in his home and enjoyed the close 
friendship of his daughters. 

HOOVER, HERBERT (1874-1964), born in Iowa, moved west where he 
graduated from Stanford University (1895) as a mining engineer. After 
engaging in mining operations all over the world, he served as chair of 
several American relief commissions during World War 1 which brought 
his appointment as U.S. Secretary of Commerce by Warren Harding in 
1921. Maintaining his statesman’s image, he easily won the 1928 Repub- 
lican nomination for president and the election in November. The on- 
slaught of the Great Depression unfortunately mangled his administra- 
tion and he was defeated for reelection by Franklin Roosevelt in 1932. He 
subsequently served on numerous public commissions, the most notable 
of which were the famous “Hoover Commissions” on government organi- 
zation (1947-49, 1953-55). 

HOUSTON, D. F. (1866-1940), New York businessman and life insurance 
executive, served as Woodrow Wilson’s Secretary of Agriculture for a few 
months in 1920 and 1921 and Secretary of the Treasury. 

HOWELL, JOSEPH (1856-1918), was born in Brigham City, Utah. Follow- 
ing service in the legislature, he was elected as a Republican to Congress 
in 1902 and served eight consecutive terms. 

HOWELLS, THOMAS F. (1854-1918), was raised in the Fifteenth Ward. 
He graduated from the University of Deseret in 1876 and, following a 
mission to Great Britain, taught in the ward schools in Salt Lake City and 
later in Sugar House and Escalante. 

HULL, CORDELL (1872-1955), served for nearly twelve years as Franklin 
Roosevelt’s Secretary of State. A Tennessee lawyer, Hull was for many 
years in the House and the Senate before his appointment as head of the 
State Department where he subsequently drafted the Roosevelt reciprocal 
trade program, took a key role in laying the groundwork for the United 
Nations, and won the Nobel Peace Prize. 

HUNN, THOMAS, was listed by Moyle as president of the Mutual 
Improvement Association when it was first organized in the Fifteenth 
Ward. Details of Hunn’s life are obscure. 

HUTCHINSON, W. R. (c. 1855-1934), received his law degree at the 
University of Michigan where he was a classmate of Moyle. He came to 
Utah in 1894 and became active in Republican politics. 

HYDE, ORSON (1805-78), was a Campbellite pastor who converted to 
Mormonism in 1830. He became one of the first apostles of the LDS 


Biographical Appendix 

church in 1835 and traveled extensively as a missionary. Dropped from 
the quorum for a time in 1839, Hyde lost the seniority which would 
ultimately have made him head of the church in place of John Taylor. He 
spent most of his Utah years in Sanpete County and was known for his 
forceful oratory. 

IVERSON, GUSTAVE A. (1874-1945), came to Utah from Norway as a 
child and settled with his family in Ephraim. After a mission to Norway, 
he received a law degree at the University of Michigan and entered 
practice at Price. From there he entered the state legislature and also 
served as president of the Carbon Stake. In 1929 he became an assistant 
attorney general of the United States, and at the time of his death was 
serving as president of the Eastern States Mission. 

IVINS, ANTHONY W. (1852-1934), counselor to HeberJ. Grant, settled 
in St. George. After missions to Native Americans and to Mexico, he 
became an apostle in 1907 and served as such until Grant, his cousin, 
appointed him to the First Presidency in 1921. Ivins was a devout Demo- 
crat, and Moyle ascribed to him the apolitical nature of Grant’s regime 
prior to 1933 and the advent of Reuben Clark into the leading councils 
of the church. 

IVINS, H. GRANT (b.1889), a son of Anthony W. Ivins, was appointed 
second counselor in the Cottonwood Stake presidency after filling a 
five-year mission to Japan. He later became a professor at Brigham Young 

JACK, JAMES (1829-1911), from Scotland, was a clerk in the church 
president’s office for many years who gained Moyle’s notice because of 
his drinking habit. 

JENNINGS, MARY HOOPER (1859-1913), the eldest daughter of William 
H. Hooper, married Thomas W. Jennings, son of William Jennings, 
uniting two of the highest families in the nineteenth-century Salt Lake City 
social strata. 

JENNINGS, WILLIAM (1823-86), was baptized a Latter-day Saint in 1852 
after coming to Salt Lake City from England and marrying a Mormon 
woman. Becoming one of the West’s most successful businessmen, Jen- 
nings built a mercantile operation which eventually amounted to $2 
million annually. He also served a term as mayor of Salt Lake City 
(1882-85) and assisted in organizing the Utah Central and Utah Southern 
railroads and in founding the Deseret National Bank and ZCMI. His 
daughters often entertained young Moyle. 

JOHNSON, ELMER W. (1854-1936), grew up in the Fifteenth Ward and 


Biographical Appendix 


later served in the Southern States Mission with Moyle. A rancher, he 
moved to Mexico in 1887 and remained there until the expulsion of 
Mormons in 1912. 

JOHNSON, FRED W., was a Rock Springs, Wyoming, Democrat who 
managed A1 Smith’s campaign of 1928 in the West. He made his head- 
quarters in Salt Lake City. 

JONES, FRED, was a youthful companion of Moyle. A son of a “more 
important” family, he joined Moyle in sowing some wild oats. 

JONES, NATHANIEL V. (1850-1921), born in Salt Lake City, studied law 
in the office of Arthur Brown following a mission in the 1870s. He was 
admitted to the bar in 1893 and practiced law in Salt Lake City until his 
death. Jones was known for his fiery temper and ready fists. 

JONES, RICEY, was the Box Elder County attorney who accompanied 
Moyle on his reform school tour in 1888. 

KEARNS, THOMAS (1862-1918), was born in Upper Canada of Irish 
Catholic parentage, grew up in Nebraska, and came to Utah in 1883. With 
David Keith, he struck rich silver ore in the Mayflower Mine at Park City 
in 1890 after which the Silver King Mining Company was organized. Thus 
acquiring wealth, Kearns entered politics and was elected to the U.S. 
Senate as a Republican in 1901 serving until 1905. He then traveled 
extensively and interviewed Pope Leo XIII in tire Vatican. He had pur- 
chased the Salt Lake Tribune in 1901 and published it until his deadt. He 
was also instrumental in the bolt of anti-Smoot Republicans in 1904 and 
the subsequent formation of the American Party in Utah. 

KELLY, JOHN ( 1 82 1-86), entered New York politics in 1 854 and went to 
Congress as a Democrat in 1855. He then became sheriff of New York 
County and entered Tammany Hall as a protege of Isaac V. Fowler. 
Having amassed a tidy fortune from his activities, Kelly reorganized 
Tammany in 1871 and for thirteen years af terwards was considered its 
autocrat. Failing in his fight against the nomination of Grover Cleveland 
for the presidency in 1884, his health and power faded rapidly. 

KENNER, SCIPIO AFRICANUS (c. 1850-1913), was admitted to the Utah 
bar in 1877 after an apprenticeship under Judge J. G. Sutherland. Al- 
though he served at various times as city and county attorney, Kenner was 
principally a journalist writing for and editing several Utah newspapers. 

KIMBALL, HEBER C. (1801-68), born in Vermont, joined the Mormons 
in 1832. A member of Zion’s Camp and one of the first missionaries to 
England, Kimball was called to the Quorum of the Twelve in 1835 as one 

Biographical Appendix 

of its original members. He was first counselor to Brigham Young from 
1848 until his death in 1868. Moyle attended his funeral in the Tabernacle. 

KIMBALL, J. GOLDEN (1853-1938), a son of Heber C. Kimball, was 
appointed to the First Council of Seventy in 1892. Tall, lanky, and full of 
folk humor, Kimball became something of a legend in Utah as he 
preached his own brand of Mormonism in his high-pitched voice. 

KING, WILLIAM H. (1864-1949), was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1916 
defeating George Sutherland. King received his law degree from the 
University of Michigan in 1887 and practiced in Fillmore and Provo. 
Following service in the legislature and as a district judge, he was elected 
to Congress for one term in 1897 and then filled the vacant B. H. Roberts 
seat from 1900-1901 but was defeated for reelection. In the Senate, King 
was noted for his conservatism and his frank opinions. He retired in 1934. 

KINGSBURY, JOSEPH T. ( 1 853-1937), joined the faculty of the University 
of Deseret in 1877. A noted chemist, Kingsbury served as acting president 
of the institution (1892-94) and became president in 1897 serving until 
1915. He received his Ph.D. at Illinois Wesleyan University in 1894 and 
did extensive work investigating the mineral-producing possibilities of the 
Great Salt Lake. Following his presidency, he continued his research and 
teaching until his death. 

KNIGHT, JOHN M. (1871-1947), served as second counselor to Richard 
W. Young in the Ensign Stake presidency (1904-19). He was also a founder 
of a pioneer automobile dealership in Salt Lake City which he developed 
from his father’s carriage and wagon company. He became president of 
the Western States Mission in 1919 and served until 1928 when he became 
president of the Ensign Stake. Knight served at various times in the State 
Senate and on the Salt Lake City Commission. 

LANDON, ALFRED M. (1887-1988), born in Pennsylvania, graduated 
LL.D. from Kansas University in 1908. He subsequently became an 
independent oil operator, the success of which propelled him into the 
governorship of Kansas in 1932. After two terms he ran for U.S. president 
on the Republican ticket in 1936 with the endorsement of the Deseret News, 
J. Reuben Clark, and Heber J. Grant. 

LANEY, HIRAM S. (1859-1932), attended the University of Michigan Law 
School with Moyle in the 1880s. He practiced law in Salt Lake City until 
1890 when he became police court judge under the newly elected Liberal 
Party administration; Laney then practiced law in Nevada and finally 
retired to Las Vegas. 

LAWRENCE, HENRY W. (1835-1924), joined the LDS church in Canada 


Biocraphical Appendix 

and came to Utah in 1852. A successful businessman, Lawrence entered 
politics. He was elected to the Salt Lake City Council in 1868 and became 
a prominent member of the Liberal Party. He was subsequently a member 
of the first Salt Lake City commission from 1911 to 1915. 

LEE, JOHN D. (1812-77), longtime stalwart in the Mormon church, took 
a prominent part in the murder of several Arkansas emigrants at Moun- 
tain Meadows in southern Utah in 1857. Lee was subsequently excommu- 
nicated from the church and was then tried and executed for the famous 
massacre. His role in the tragedy notwithstanding, Lee was undoubtedly 
a scapegoat being the only person among the many involved who was 
executed for the crime. 

LINDSAY, BRIGHAM (1877-1957), Henry Lindsay’s youngest son, came 
to Utah with the family where he lived in Salt Lake City until his death. 

LINDSAY, CORA (see Cora Lindsay Ashton) 

LINDSAY, HENRY P. (1824-1902), was a Civil War veteran and member 
of the church that Moyle sought out along the Catawba River in North 
Carolina in 1880. He later came to Utah where he died in Salt Lake City. 

LINDSAY, MILLARD, was Henry P. Lindsay’s eldest son and Moyle’s first 
convert in North Carolina. He never came to Utah. 

LLOYD, JOHN (1856-1919), was a boyhood acquaintance of Moyle. 
Details of his subsequent life in Salt Lake City are obscure. 

LODGE, HENRY CABOT (1850-1924), graduated from Harvard Law 
School in 1874 and was admitted to the Boston bar in 1875, but he never 
practiced, becoming instead editor of the North American Review. He 
received a Pli.D. in 1876 in political science and wrote prolifically. His 
numerous scholarly works, however, were increasingly tainted with parti- 
sanship as time went on and he eventually devoted his full efforts to 
politics, being elected to Congress in 1886 and to the Senate in 1893 
where he served until his death. Basically a conservative isolationist, he 
led the fight in the Senate against ratification of the Treaty of Versailles 
with its League of Nations. To Moyle and other Wilson followers, this 
sealed him to eternal damnation. 

LUND, ANTHON H. (1844-1921), apostle and counselor to Joseph F. 
Smith, was born in Denmark and joined the Mormons in Norway in 1857. 
Lund arrived in Utah at the age of eighteen, served several missionary 
terms in Scandinavia, and became an apostle in 1889. Active as well in 
business and civic affairs, he served several terms in the Utah legislature. 


Biographical Appendix 

LUND, CANNON, was Heber J. Grant’s chauffeur during the last years 
of the president’s life. 

LYMAN, AMASA M. (1813-77), became an apostle in 1842. He later 
associated with the Godbeite movement and preached unorthodox doc- 
trine on the Atonement. Subsequently dropped from the Quorum of the 
Twelve (1867), Lyman was excommunicated from the church in May 1870. 

LYMAN, FRANCIS M. (1840-1916), was born in Illinois but moved with 
his family to California in 1851. Following a mission, he settled in Utah 
and became an apostle in 1880. Lyman was one of the “gumshoers” whom 
Moyle accused of using church position to build up the Republican Party 
in Utah in the 1890s. 

LYMAN, RICHARD R. (1870-196.3), a son of Francis M. Lyman, taught 
engineering at the University of Utah prior to obtaining his doctorate in 
the field at Cornell in 1905. He distinguished himself as an engineer of 
national repute and as a professor at the University of Utah until he 
became an apostle in 1918. In 1943 Lyman was excommunicated from 
the church for adultery but was rebaptized in 1954. 

McADOO, WILLIAM G. (1864-1941), born in Georgia, studied law at the 
University of Tennessee. He later moved to California and became 
involved in finance. Woodrow Wilson appointed him Secretary of the 
Treasury in 1913 in which capacity he also ran the nation’s railroads 
during World War I. Moyle’s service as McAdoo’s first assistant brought 
them into a close friendship which lasted through the former Secretary’s 
two unsuccessful bids for the Democratic presidential nomination (1924 
and 1928). He also served in the U.S. Senate (1922-38). 

McALLISTER, G. STANLEY (1900-70), was born in Utah but moved to 
New York City where he became prominent in business and civic affairs. 
He served in numerous church positions in the East including the presi- 
dency of the New York Stake. At the time of his death he was a director 
of the Bonneville International Corporation, a holding company for the 
LDS church, and had played a key role in Mormon business operations 
on the east coast. 

McCLERNAND, JOHN A. (1812-1900), a member of the Utah Commis- 
sion under President Cleveland, was admitted to the Illinois bar in 1832 
and entered politics as a Democrat. After serving in Congress (1843-61), 
he accepted a commission in the Union Army as brigadier general and 
served with unblemished distinction until illness forced him to resign in 
1864. He later was circuit judge in Illinois and was Democratic national 
chairman in 1876. His favorable report on the Mormons while a member 


Biographical Appendix 

of the Utah Commission helped to dispel some of the false concepts about 
the territory which prevailed nationally. 

McCUNE, A. W. (1849-1927), was born in India, the son of a British 
soldier. After his family’s conversion to Mormonism, McCune came to 
Utah in 1857 and grew up in Nephi. He early engaged in railroad building 
and then mining, and by 1888 had earned fortune enough to move to Salt 
Lake City where he dabbled in business, publishing, and ultimately 
politics. Though the leader in the balloting, he was unable to achieve a 
majority in the deadlocked senatorial election of 1899. He died while 
traveling in France. 

McCUNE, GEORGE W. (1873-1963), served as president of the Eastern 
States Mission of the LDS church from 1919 to 1922 where he worked 
closely with Moyle to establish a branch in Washington, D.C. Moyle 
appreciated his Democratic sympathies and willingness to ignore the 
presence of Reed Smoot in Washington while making policy for the 

McKAY, DAVID O. (1873-1970), became an apostle in 1906 and ninth 
president of the LDS church in 1951. Born in Huntsville, Utah, McKay 
served a mission to Great Britain in the 1890s following his graduation 
from the University of Utah. His career in education was cut short when 
he joined the Quorum of the Twelve at the age of thirty-two. Moyle 
regarded him as the spiritual head of the church during Grant’s last years 
while J. Reuben Clark led in politics and temporal issues. 

McKEAN, JAMES B. (1821-79), was a New York lawyer and former 
member of Congress who was appointed chief justice of Utah Territory 
in 1870. McKean attacked Mormonism with a “judicial crusade” that 
eventually resulted in his removal in 1875 for “fanatical and extreme 
conduct.” He subsequently practiced law in Salt Lake City until his death. 

McKENZIE, DAVID (1833-1912), a Scottish convert, became private 
secretary to Brigham Young and subsequently chief clerk in the presi- 
dent’s office and bookkeeper for the Trustee-in-Trust and the Presiding 
Bishop. Moyle remembered his “typically Scotch” need for alcoholic 

McLEAN ANGUS W. (1870-1935), after receiving a law degree from the 
University of North Carolina, entered the banking business and was soon 
president and director of numerous banking and textile industries in 
North Carolina. He also became active in Democratic politics serving on 
the national committee (1916-24) and as governor of the state (1925-28). 


Biographical Appendix 

He also served in the U.S. Treasury Department during the Wilson 
administration and as director of the War Finance Corporation (191 8-2 1 ). 

MARGETTS, PHILLIP (1829-1914), an English convert to Mormonism, 
came to Utah in 1850. He was a member of the company that presented 
the first play in the Salt Lake Theater in 1862 and remained prominent 
in Utah drama for several decades. He had served an LDS mission in the 
1850s and his saloon-operating days were forgotten at the time of his 
death when he was eulogized as a “faithful high priest.” 

MARGETTS, WILLIAM (1865-1945), a popular actor and comedian in 
Salt Lake City in the 1880s and 1890s, operated a brewery north of Union 
Square. He later moved to California and died there. 

MAUGHAN, FRANCIS (see Francis Maughan Vernon) 

MAW, HERBERT B. (1893-1990), governor of Utah from 1941 to 1949, 
defeated Henry D. Moyle in the Democratic primary of 1940. From 1929 
to 1940, Maw was active in Democratic politics as state senator, president 
of the senate, and as a leader of the liberal wing of the Utah party. Prior 
to his election to the senate, he practiced law and was professor of speech 
and dean of men at the University of Utah. He also served as a chaplain 
with the 89th Division during World War I. 

MELLON, ANDREW W. (1854-1937), served for eleven years (1921-32) 
as Secretary of the Treasury. Born in Pennsylvania, he entered his father’s 
banking firm at the age of twenty. In 1902 he formed with his brother the 
Mellon National Bank which became one of the nation’s most important 
financial institutions. At one time some believed Mellon to be involved in 
enterprises worth more than $8 billion. He also served for a time in the 
1930s as Ambassador to Japan. 

MERRILL, JOSEPH F. (1868-1952), was a scientist with degrees from the 
University of Michigan and Johns Hopkins. Following a term as LDS 
church Commissioner of Education, he became an apostle in 1931. 
Though he was known as a Democrat, he shocked Moyle in the 1930s with 
his open attacks on Roosevelt and the New Deal. 

MINER, AURELIUS (1832-1913), came to Utah to practice law in 1854. 
He became a Mormon a year later and subsequently served two LDS 
missions to Europe. Miner held numerous public offices in Salt Lake 
County including magistrate and prosecuting attorney. 

MONSON, JOSEPH (1862-1932), born in Logan, was a prominent Utah 
architect and builder. Following an LDS mission to Norway and a term as 


Biographical Appendix 

supervising architect for Utah schools, Monson was elected as a Democrat 
to the legislature ultimately serving in both houses. 

MONSON, WALTER P. (1875-1935), was president of the Eastern States 
Mission of the LDS church during much of Moyle’s first stay in Washing- 
ton. After a mission to the Northwest, he was called as president of the 
Eastern States in 1913. Returning to Utah in 1919, he engaged in the 
lumber business and in 1934 became chief building inspector of Salt Lake 

MORGAN, JOHN (1842-94), came to Utah as a school teacher in 1866 
and was baptized in 1867. He was called to the Southern States Mission 
in 1875 and in 1878 became its president serving many years. He was 
appointed a member of the First Council of the Seventy in 1884. 

MORGENTHAU, HENRY J„ JR. (1891-1967), was educated at Cornell 
and served as Governor Franklin Roosevelt’s conservation commissioner 
and chair of his agricultural advisory commission. With Roosevelt’s elec- 
tion as president, Morgenthau became Undersecretary of the Treasury 
and then Secretary upon the resignation of William Wooden in 1934. He 
served until 1945 and retired to his daily farm in New York. 

MORLEY, SYLVANUS G. (1883-1948), born in Pennsylvania and reared 
in Colorado, did extensive graduate work at Harvard in archeology and 
became research associate at the Carnegie Institute. He led numerous 
expeditions into Mexico and published extensively particularly on the 
Mayan Culture. 

MORRIS, ELIAS (1825-98), was born in Wales where he joined the church 
in 1849. He emigrated to Utah in 1852 and within a short time had become 
one of the leading building contractors in the territory. He became bishop 
of the Fifteenth Ward in Salt Lake City in 1890 and subsequently served 
as a member of the constitutional convention of 1895. 

MORRIS, NF.PHI L. (1870-1943), served in the legislature in the 1890s 
following a mission to England. He became president of the Salt Lake 
Stake in 1904 and served as such for twenty-five years. A life-long Repub- 
lican, Morris nevertheless ran for governor on the Progressive ticket in 
1912. His business and civic successes were numerous. 

MORRISON, FRANK (1859-1950), born in Ontario, attended law school 
at Wake Forest and the University of Chicago and entered the field of 
labor relations. In 1897 he became secretary of the American Federation 
of Labor seiving until 1939. 

MORROW, DWIGHT W. (1873-1931), received a law degree from Co- 


Biographical Appendix 

lumbia University in 1899. He became a partner in theJ.P. Morgan house 
in 1914 where he specialized in international loans and continued there 
until Calvin Coolidge appointed him Ambassador to Mexico in 1927. His 
conciliatory work there brought him into the national limelight and he 
consequently resigned in 1930 to run successfully for the U.S. Senate in 
New Jersey. J. Reuben Clark succeeded him in Mexico City. 

MORTON, “WHISKEY,” was a saloon keeper in Salt Lake City. His 
identity beyond his nickname is not apparent. 

MOYLE, ALICE EVELYN DINWOODEY (1865-1950), was the daughter 
of Henry Dinwoodey and his third wife, Sarah Kinnersley. Moyle met her 
in the winter of 1 886-87 and married her on 1 7 November 1887. Educated 
at the University of Deseret, she planned a career in drama and continued 
her interest in the theater and painting throughout her life. During the 
early 1930s, she represented the Women’s Relief Society on the National 
Women’s Council. She bore Moyle eight children, six of whom survived 
to adulthood. 

MOYLE, ALICE EVELYN (see Alice Evelyn Moyle Nelson) 

MOYLE, ELIZABETH WOOD (1839-1908), the first wife of James Moyle 
and the mother of James H. Moyle, came to Utah in 1858 with her family. 
Her father, Daniel Wood, settled in Davis County and founded what is 
presently known as Woods Cross. She bore fourteen children, six of whom 
survived to adulthood. 

MOYLE, GILBERT D. (1898-1961), was the fourth son and fifth child 
born to the Moyles. He served an LDS mission to the Eastern states prior 
to World War I and then attended Wharton School of Finance at the 
University of Pennsylvania. Returning to the West, he became involved in 
the oil business and eventually managed an oil company in Idaho and 
directed with his brothers the Wasatch Oil Refining Company in Utah. 

MOYLE, HENRY (1844-1925), of Alpine, Utah, was the brother ofjames 
Moyle. Born in England, he came to Utah in 1856 in the first handcart 
company. The family first settled in Salt Lake City but later moved to what 
was then called Mountainville in Utah County. Following a mission to 
Great Britain in the 1890s, Moyle became patriarch of the Alpine Stake. 

MOYLE, HENRY D. (1889-1963), the eldest son of james H. and Alice 
Dinwoodey Moyle, received degrees in engineering and geology, and law 
degrees from the University of Chicago and Harvard. Following a mission 
and service in World War I, he practiced law in Salt Lake City and taught 
equity law at the University of Utah. During this period, he engaged 
successfully in numerous business activities and was called as president of 


Biographical Appendix 

the Cottonwood Stake (1927) and chairman of the Church Welfare 
Committee (1937). In 1947 he became an apostle and then a member of 
the First Presidency in 1959. 

MOYLE, JAMES (1835-90), was the father of James H. Moyle. He was 
baptized in England in 1852 and emigrated in 1854 whereupon he went 
to work on the Lion House and then Temple Block as a stonemason. After 
his marriage to Elizabeth Wood in 1856, he began a career as a contractor. 
In 1875 and after intermittent periods of service on Temple Block, 
Brigham Young called him to superintend construction of the temple. 
Having taken a second wife in 1870, Moyle went to prison in 1886 for 
unlawful cohabitation. His relatively young death and his failure to 
achieve much notice because of his humble beginnings inspired his eldest 
son, James Henry, to do much of the historical work that culminated in 
the preparation of his memoirs. 

MOYLE, JAMES D. (1901-83), the Moyles’ fifth son and sixth child, 
attended school in Utah and Washington, D.C., and graduated from the 
University of Utah. Following a mission to England in the 1920s, he 
became with his brothers a director of the Wasatch Oil Refining Company 
and its sales manager. Operating several retail and wholesale outlets in 
Utah and Idaho for gasoline and butane, he was an early business success 
and participated in numerous civic and church projects. 

MOYLE, JAMES HUBERT (1891-94), the Moyles’ second son, died sud- 
denly at the age of three. 

MOYLE, JOHN ROWE (1808-89), the grandfather of James H. Moyle, 
joined the LDS church in England in 1851 and came to Utah in 1856 with 
the first handcart company. After a brief stay in Salt Lake City, he moved 
his family to Mountainville (now Alpine) in Utah County. He was a 
stonecutter by trade, worked with his son James on Temple Block, and 
gained some renown by building near his home a stone tower for Indian 

MOYLE, JOSEPH E. (1857-1938), was Moyle’s paternal uncle. Nearly the 
same age, the two were extremely close in childhood and hunted together 
around Alpine, Utah. He inherited the family home in Alpine and lived 
there with his wife until his death. 

MOYLE, MARGARET ANNA CANNELL (1843-1920), became James 
Moyle’s second wife in 1870. Known to James H. as “Aunt Maggie,” she 
bore nine children, six of whom survived to adulthood. 


MOYLE, RICHARD G. (1903-1905), the Moyles’ sixth son and seventh 
child, died in infancy. 

Biographical Appendix 

MOYLE, SARA VIRGINIA (see Sara Virginia Moyle Creer) 

MOYLE, STEPHEN L. (1869-1945), was James H. Moyle’s younger 
brother. He was founder of the Surety Abstract Company and a member 
of the Salt Lake board of appraisers. 

MOYLE, WALTER G. (1895-1970), the third son and fourth child of the 
Moyles, graduated from the University of Utah and then received a law 
degree from the University of Chicago. He also attended Harvard and 
served in World War I. Following service on the staff of the attorney 
general, he set up practice in Washington, D.C., working principally as a 
tax lawyer. 

NEBEKER, AQUILA (1859-1933), was born in Salt Lake City. After 
attending the University of Deseret, Nebeker joined E. A. Wall in the 
mining business but shortly afterwards became a rancher, moving to 
Laketown. In 1892 he was elected to the legislature and subsequently 
served in the constitutional convention. Nebeker vied unsuccessfully with 
Moyle for the Democratic nomination for governor in 1900 and later 
served a colorful term as U.S. Marshal in San Juan County, Utah. 

NELSON, ALICE EVELYN MOYLE (1893-1979), the first daughter and 
third child born to the Moyles, was educated in Utah, Washington, D.C., 
and New York. She received advance degrees in psychology and social 
work and served on the staffs of the personnel division of Macy and 
Company, the New York Mental Hospital, and the New York City Crime 
Prevention Bureau. She married Harry Nelson in 1930 and lived in 
Chicago for a time before finally settling in Salt Lake City on the family 
estate at Cottonwood. 

NELSON, HARRY (1901-88), was an accomplished actor when he met 
and married Moyle’s daughter, Evelyn, in New York. He subsequently 
worked in the Macy organization and held executive positions with 
Montgomery Ward in Chicago and ZCMI in Salt Lake City. 

NIBLEY, CHARLES W. (1849-1931), presiding bishop and later coun- 
selor to Heber J. Grant, was a Cache Valley businessman prior to his 
ecclesiastical calling. Nibley revised the tithing system and traveled exten- 
sively as a general authority. He was also a close ally to Reed Smoot. 

ODELL, GEORGE T. (1848-1931), born in England, came to Utah with 
his Mormon parents in 1861. In the 1880s, in partnership with Heber J. 
Grant, he established an implement and vehicle business which ultimately 
became the Consolidated Wagon and Machine Company of which Odell 
became general manager. In 1919 he became president of the firm 


Biographical Appendix 


succeeding Joseph F. Smith. Moyle was a director and general counsel to 
the company for many years and a close friend of Odell. 

O’LAUGHLIN, JOHN CALLAN (1873-1954), was a noted Waihington 
newspaper correspondent who was also active in Progressive anc Repub- 
lican party politics. A close associate of Theodore Roosevelt, Olaughlin 
wrote several books and articles in praise of Roosevelt and his hand of 
Republicanism. He thought little of Reed Smoot. 

ORMSBY, OLIVER C. (1844-1916), migrated with his pareits from 
Pennsylvania to California in 1852. He came to Salt Lake City in 1861 as 
a miner and eventually opened drug stores in Manti and Brighim City. 
After subsequently obtaining his M.D. degree from Rush Cdlege in 
Chicago, Ormsby practiced medicine in northern Utah, eventually settled 
in Logan, and then moved to Rexburg, Idaho, where he lived mtil his 

OVERFIELD, CHAUNCY P. (1872-1958), was an aide to Charles Evans 
Hughes in New York before 1896 when he moved to Utah for his health. 
In Salt Lake City, he associated with the Rio Grande Western Railway and 
became active in Democratic politics serving in several party posts. With 
the presidential candidacy of Hughes in 1916, however, Overfield 
switched parties, became chair of the state Republican Party, and in 1930 
was its candidate for the Senate. He was also successful in numerous 
business ventures and held high lay positions in the Episcopal church. 

PARK, HAMILTON G. (1826-1912), was baptized in Scotland in 1840 and 
immigrated to Utah where he became business manager for Brigham 
Young. He later served several missions to Great Britain and worked at 
ZCMI. He gained notice while serving as a member of the Salt Lake Stake 
presidency when he sold his land in the Thirteenth Ward to non-Mormons 
for the construction of a hotel. 

PARK, JOHN R. (1833-1900), came to Utah in 1861 to teach school. After 
serving as president of Deseret University for twenty-five years, he became 
the first superintendent of public instruction in the State of Utah. Park 
worked closely with Moyle prior to his mission and in 1882 to get him into 
the University of Michigan. 

PARK, WILLIAM, was a North Carolina farmer whom Moyle baptized 
into the church. He later moved with his family to Rigby, Idaho. 

PARKER, ALTON B. (1852-1926), practiced law in New York and even- 
tually rose in the state court system to its highest seats. He was nominated 
for the U.S. presidency in 1904 as a Democrat but was defeated handily 

Biographical Appendix 

in the election by Theodore Roosevelt. He subsequently practiced law in 
New York City until his death. 

PARRY, JOHN (1817-82), was baptized in Wales in 1846 and came to Utah 
in 1856. He worked intermittently in partnership with James Moyle as a 
stonemason until 1877 when he was called to superintend the construc- 
tion of the Logan temple. He also served a mission to Great Britain 

PENROSE, CHARLES W. (1832-1925), counselor to Joseph F. Smith and 
Heber J. Grant, joined the LDS church in England and came to Utah in 
1861. Between missionary terms, Penrose taught school and ultimately 
became the editor of the Deseret News. He became an apostle in 1904 and 
a member of the First Presidency in 1911. 

PIERSON, CHARLES, was a school teacher hired by Daniel Wood to tutor 
his children. Pierson taught Moyle’s mother to read and write. He later 
practiced law, but additional details of his life are obscure. 

PIKE, WALTER R. (1848-1921), came to Utah from England about 1860 
where he began to study medicine. He eventually graduated from the 
Burlington Medical College in Vermont and then opened a practice in 
Salt Lake City but moved shortly afterwards to Provo. He served a term 
in the legislature (1892) and became the first director of the state mental 
hospital. Pike later retired to St. George. 

PLAYER, WILLIAM J. (1831-82), was for many years foreman of the 
church blacksmith shop and later of the Salt Lake City Street Railroad. 
He was a resident of the Fifteenth Ward and a close associate there and 
on Temple Block of James Moyle. Born in England, he immigrated to 
Nauvoo in 1841 and to Utah ten years later. 

POLLARD, JOSEPH (1819-90), was the sixth bishop of the Fifteenth 
Ward, serving from 1877 until his death. Pollard was baptized in England 
in 1849 and arrived in Utah in 1857. Moyle remembered Pollard as the 
bishop of his youth, although youngjim was almost nineteen when Pollard 
succeeded Robert T. Burton. 

POWERS, ORLANDO W. (1850-1914), early practiced law in Michigan 
and New York, becoming active in local politics. In 1885 he was appointed 
associate justice of Utah by the president but resigned to practice law in 
Salt Lake City. A leader of the Liberal Party, Powers founded in 1892 the 
Tuscarora Society to keep alive the “Democratic-Liberal” cause in Utah. 
Following statehood, he became chair of the Democratic state committee 
and aspired unsuccessfully to the U.S. Senate. 


Biographical Appendix 


PRATT, ORSON (1811-81), an apostle from 1835 until his death, had a 
wealth of missionary experiences and was considered one of the finest 
speakers and writers in the Mormon church. Additionally, he served as 
Church Historian from 1874 to 1881. 

PRATT, PARLEY P. (1807-57), saw a Book of Mormon in 1830 and sought 
baptism. Ordained an apostle in 1835, he wrote profusely in defense of 
the church and quickly became known for his intellectual acumen. Pratt 
served several missions for the church, and after coming to Utah took a 
leading role in its governance. He was shot and killed in Arkansas while 
returning from a mission to the East. 

PRIDAY, SAMUEL (1820-1903), a native of England, worked on Temple 
Block with James Moyle. During his work as a stonemason there, he was 
blinded in an accident and retired to his home in the Fifth Ward where 
he subsequently became patriarch of the Salt Lake Stake. 

RAWLINS, JOSEPH L. (1850-1926), the son of a Mormon bishop, was 
educated under John R. Park whom he followed to the University of 
Deseret where he became professor of mathematics in 1870. He then 
entered the University of Indiana but returned to Utah without graduat- 
ing and resumed his post at the University of Deseret. Licensed to practice 
law in 1875, he resigned from the faculty and entered politics first as a 
Liberal and then as a Democrat. In 1892 he was elected to Congress and 
in 1897 to the Senate. He was influential as a Congressman in obtaining 
statehood for Utah and obtaining for the University of Utah a portion of 
the Fort Douglas reservation. He resumed private practice in 1903. 

RAWLINS, JOSEPH S. (1823-1900), after joining the LDS church in 
Illinois, came to Utah in 1848. He served as bishop of the South Cotton- 
wood Ward from 1871 to 1900. Joseph L. Rawlins was his son. 

RICH, CHARLES C. (1809-83), was baptized in 1832 and quickly distin- 
guished himself as a military leader among the Saints. In 1844 Rich took 
command of the Nauvoo Legion with the rank of major general. After 
coming to Utah, he served briefly as president of the Salt Lake Stake and 
then became an apostle in 1849. In 1863 Brigham Young called him to 
settle Bear Lake Valley where he died in the town of Paris, Idaho, at the 
age of eighty-one. 

RICH, EZRA C. (1864-1949), a son of Charles C. Rich, received a medical 
degree fromjefferson Medical College in Philadelphia in 1894 after which 
he set up practice in Ogden with his brother, Edward I. Rich. He was 
considered a pioneer physician in Weber County because of his innova- 

Biographical Appendix 

tions and opening of the hospital there in 1897. His daughter, Helen, was 
married to Moyle’s son Gilbert. 

RICHARDS, CHARLES C. (1859-1953), was a son of Franklin D. 
Richards. Appointed Secretary of Utah Territory in 1893, he was the first 
Mormon to receive a federal executive position in Utah since 1858. He 
was admitted to the Utah bar in 1887 and became active in politics first 
in the Peoples Party and then in the formation of the Democratic Party, 
particularly in Weber County. Moyle counted him as a close associate and 
ally throughout his political career. 

RICHARDS, FRANKLIN D. (1821-99), was converted by Brigham and 
Joseph Young in 1836. He became a member of the Quorum of the Twelve 
in 1849 and served two terms as president of the British Mission in the 
1850s. Moyle’s primary contact with him was as they both served in the 
territorial legislature. In addition, Richards was at various times regent of 
the University of Deseret, general in the Utah militia, judge in Weber 
County, and Church Historian. 

RICHARDS, FRANKLIN S. (1849-1934), a son of Franklin D. Richards, 
read law as a young man in Ogden and was admitted to the Utah bar in 
1874. Following a mission to Europe, Richards became Salt Lake City 
attorney in 1884 serving until 1890 and at the same time acting as attorney 
for the church particularly in behalf of polygamists. With the dissolution 
of the Peoples Party, Richards rose to the leading councils of the Demo- 
cratic Party although his continuing capacity as attorney for the church 
restrained his political activity. He was a member of the constitutional 
convention of 1895 and represented Joseph F. Smith and other Mormon 
witnesses at the Smoot hearings in Washington. 

RICHARDS, GEORGE F. (1861-1950), a son of Franklin D. Richards, 
became an apostle in 1 906 following service as a stake patriarch. He served 
as acting patriarch to the church for five years and in 1945 became 
president of the Twelve. 

RICHARDS, STEPHEN L. (1879-1959), grew up in Cache Valley and 
received a law degree from the University of Chicago in 1904. He then 
practiced law in Salt Lake County until he became an apostle at the age 
of thirty-seven. From 1951 until his death he served as first counselor to 
church president David O. McKay. 

RIGDON, SIDNEY (1793-1876), was a Campbellite preacher who con- 
verted to Mormonism in Ohio. He served as Joseph Smith’s first counselor 
(1833-44) and exerted a powerful influence on the prophet until their 
estrangement and Rigdon’s eventual excommunication. David Whitmer, 


Biographical Appendix 

in his interview with Moyle in 1885, attributed to Rigdon much of the 
change in the church which occurred after 1835 and blamed him for his 
own separation from the Saints. 

RITER, W. W. (1838-1922), came to Utah in 1847. After several missions 
for the church, he took an active part in building the Utah Central 
Railroad and other lines within Utah. Moyle lived near Riter in the 
Twelfth-Thirteenth Ward and their families were closely associated. 

ROBERTS, BRIGHAM H. (1857-1933), was an important intellectual and 
political figure in Utah in addition to his membership on the First Council 
of Seventy (1888-1933). His parents joined the LDS church in England 
and brought him to Utah in 1866. Called to the Southern States Mission, 
he became its president in 1880. He served another mission to England 
and became interested in politics. He was elected as a Democrat to 
Congress in 1900 but was denied his seat because he was a polygamist. 
Like Moses Thatcher, Roberts clashed with his colleagues among the 
church leadership because of his devotion to his party, but he backed 
down short of losing his position in the councils. He wrote prolifically, 
authoring several books including a multi-volume history of Morinonism 
and editing the so-called Joseph Smith History of the Church. 

ROBINSON, JOSEPH T. (1872-1937), longtime leader of Senate Demo- 
crats, had served in the House and as governor of Arkansas. He also ran 
on the Democratic ticket with Alfred E. Smith in 1928. Robinson was a 
lawyer by profession and at the time of his death was considered to be the 
leading contender for a seat on the Supreme Court. Moyle came to know 
him well in Washington during World War I. 

ROCKWELL, ORRIN PORTER (1815-78), joined the Mormons in 1830. 
He served as personal bodyguard to Joseph Smith and then as a hunter 
and scout for Orson Pratt’s advance company which entered Salt Lake 
Valley in 1847 ahead of Brigham Young. He operated a mail station south 
of the city and also served for many years as a deputy marshal. Rockwell’s 
exploits as a gunfighter were legendary among the Saints. 

ROLAPP, HENRY H. (1860-1936), joined the Mormon church in Den- 
mark in 1877 after which he went to England. In 1880 he came to Utah 
and began the study of law. Admitted to the Utah bar in 1881, he entered 
the University of Michigan where he roomed with Moyle. He then prac- 
ticed law in Ogden until he was appointed to the Utah Supreme Court in 
1895 and elected district judge in 1896. Reentering private practice in 
1905, he engaged in the sugar business and served in numerous church 
and civic positions. Rolapp later became president of the Eastern States 
Mission and was succeeded by Moyle in 1929. 


Biographical Appendix 

ROOSEVELT, FRANKLIN D. (1882-1945), graduated from Harvard, 
studied law at Columbia, and commenced the practice of law in New York 
in 1907. Following a term in the New York state senate, he served as 
assistant secretary of the navy during the Wilson administration (1913-20). 
He then ran for vice president withjames M. Cox on the Democratic ticket 
in 1920. Shortly after the campaign he was stricken with polio, but 
continued to be active in politics. He nominated Alfred E. Smith for the 
presidency in 1924 and 1928 and was himself elected governor of New 
York in 1928 and reelected in 1930. He easily defeated Herbert Hoover 
in the 1932 presidential campaign and was subsequently elected to the 
White House three more times on the tremendous popularity of his 
domestic “New Deal’’ and his leadership in World War II. 

ROOSEVELT, JAMES, was the first cousin of President Franklin D. 
Roosevelt who told him about the Mormon boys who invented Utah’s wide 
streets after seeing a fire leap narrow ones in Macon, Georgia. James was 
a common name in the large Roosevelt family and it is difficult to 
determine the exact identity of this individual. 

ROOSEVELT, THEODORE (1858-1919), born in New York City and 
graduated from Harvard, read law but turned to the writing of history. 
After publishing a few works, he was elected to the New York Assembly 
which launched him into public service. After a term as civil service 
commissioner under Benjamin Harrison and some traveling and writing, 
he was appointed police commissioner in New York City in 1895 and then 
as assistant secretary of the navy in 1897. With the outbreak of war in 
1898, Roosevelt volunteered for service, gained heroic stature in Cuba, 
and was elected governor of New York. He became vice president in 1901 
and shortly thereafter acceded to the presidency upon the assassination 
of William McKinley. He was elected in his own right in 1904, but retired 
in 1909 only to return in an unsuccessful bid for reelection as a Progres- 
sive in 1912. His health failing, he nevertheless volunteered for service in 
World War I but was refused. 

ROPER, DANIEL C. (1867-1943), U.S. Secretary of Commerce from 1933 
to 1938, became Moyle’s dose friend during their service together in the 
Wilson administration and in the councils of the Democratic Party. Roper 
later (1939) served briefly as minister to Canada. 

SALMON, WILLIAM W. (1839-1928), was baptized in Scotland and 
immigrated to Utah in 1866 where he fought in the Black Hawk War. He 
subsequently joined the Salt Lake City police force and became a deputy 
city marshal. From 1893 until his death, Salmon worked full-time in the 
Salt Lake temple. 

Biographical Appendix 

SANDBERG, JOHN C. (1837-1909), came to Utah from Sweden in 1875. 
His attempt to gain citizenship touched off a test case regarding the 
naturalization of Mormons. Sandberg published a Swedish newspaper in 
Salt Lake City for many years. 

SCANLAN, LAWRENCE (1843-1915), bishop of the Salt Lake Diocese of 
the Catholic church, came to Utah as a priest in 1873. Born in Ireland, 
Scanlan maintained cordial relations with the Mormons and was elevated 
to the bishopric in 1887. Four years later he began construction on the 
Cathedral of the Madeleine which ultimately became a Utah landmark. 
He also founded Holy Cross Hospital (1875), All Hallows College (1881), 
and St. Mary’s Orphanage (1899). 

SESSIONS, PERRIGRINE (1814-93), was born in Maine and joined the 
LDS church during the Kirtland, Ohio, period. He arrived in Utah in 1847 
and founded a community on the site of present-day Bountiful. He had 
nine wives and fifty-two children. 

SHARP, JEANNETTE (see Jeannette Sharp Ferguson) 

SHARP, JOHN (1820-91), came to Utah from Scotland in 1850. He 
subcontracted a section of the Union Pacific Railroad through Weber 
Canyon and later became a member of the railroad’s board of directors. 
Ordained a bishop in 1854, he served as head of the Twentieth Ward for 
many years. 

SHERIFF, JOHN (JACK) (1853-1932), was baptized in England and came 
to Utah in 1869 where he went to work cutting stone for the Salt Lake 
temple. He later worked on the Cardston temple and numerous buildings 
in Utah including the Salt Lake City and County Building. 

SMITH, ALFRED E. (1874-1944), starting out with a clerkship in Tam- 
many Hall, progressed gradually to become the New York City party boss, 
a power in the state legislature, and four times governor of New York. 
Smith campaigned vigorously for the U.S. presidential nomination in 
1924 and 1928, succeeding the second time but losing to Herbert Hoover 
at the polls. He was famous for his Catholicism, his urban predilections, 
and his opposition to Prohibition. All of these things probably combined 
to make Moyle one of his greatest opponents among Western Democrats. 

SMITH, DAVID A. (1879-1952), a son ofjoseph F. Smith, became coun- 
selor to the presiding bishop of the church in 1907 and served in the 
bishopric for thirty years. 

SMITH, ELIAS A. (1857-1947), was elected probate judge in Salt Lake 
County in 1883 and then county selectman in 1889. He was a member of 


Biographical Appendix 

the legislature in 1886 and 1888 and served as president during the latter 
term. He eventually went into banking becoming an officer in the Deseret 
Savings Bank. 

SMITH, GEORGE A. (1817-75), a cousin of the prophet Joseph Smith, 
joined the church in 1832 and became an apostle in 1839. He served in 
the Nauvoo Legion, in the legislature, as Church Historian, and in 1868 
succeeded Heber C. Kimball as Brigham Young’s counselor. 

SMITH, GEORGE ALBERT (1870-1951), a son of John Henry Smith, was 
the eighth president of the Mormon church. Following a mission to the 
Southern States and other religious and civic activities, he became an 
apostle in 1903 at the age of thirty-three. Smith was chronically ill after 
1909 but acceded to the presidency in 1945. Moyle’s major association 
with him was in conjunction with their mutual interest in the preservation 
of Utah history. 

SMITH, HYRUM M. (1872-1918), a son of Joseph F. Smith, became an 
apostle in 1901 at the age of twenty-nine. He died just before his father 
at the age of forty-five. 

SMITH, JOHN (1832-191 1), was the fourth presiding patriarch of the LDS 
church. A son of the martyred Hyrum Smith, he came to Utah in 1858 
and became patriarch to the church in 1855. It was from Smith that Moyle 
received his patriarchal blessing in 1879. 

SMITH, JOHN HENRY (1848-1911), a son of George A. Smith the 
apostle, came to Utah in a pioneer company as an infant. Between 
missions for the church, Smith contracted two hundred miles of the 
Central Pacific Railroad, served on the Salt Lake City Council, and was 
elected president of the constitutional convention of 1895. He became an 
apostle in 1880 and just prior to his death was appointed second counselor 
to his kinsman, Joseph F. Smith. With Francis M. Lyman, Smith was a 
“gumshoer” who went out from church headquarters to convert Mormon 
Democrats into Republicans. 

SMITH, JOSEPH (1805-44), founder and first president of the Mormon 
church, claimed to have seen God the Father and Christ in a vision in 
1820. More visions followed which culminated in the “translation” of the 
Book of Mormon from metal plates and the organization of the new 
religion in 1830. Persecuted severely, Smith and his followers moved from 
New York to Ohio, and from there to Missouri and Illinois where Smith 
was assassinated in 1844. 

SMITH, JOSEPH F. (1838-1918), was the son of Hyrum Smith who was 
martyred at Carthage, Illinois, in 1844. He became an apostle in 1866 and 


Biographic. ai, Appkndix 

sixth president of the church in 1901. Prior to this, he had made his 
Republican sentiments well-known in published polemics and worked 
vigorously for Republican success in Utah even during his term as presi- 
dent. Moyle clashed with him often over what the Democrat believed was 
dereliction of duty to keep separate church and state. Smith’s open 
support of Reed Smoot further rankled Moyle as did the prophet’s failure 
to take a firm stand in favor of local prohibition in the 1910s. 

SMITH, JOSEPH F. (1899-1964), a son of Hyrum M. Smith, was the sixth 
presiding patriarch of the church. Prior to his call, he was head of the 
speech department at the University of Utah. He was released under 
controversial circumstances in 1946. 

SMITH, JOSEPH FIELDING (1876-1972), a son of President Joseph F. 
Smith, became an apostle in 1910 and tenth president of the church in 
1970. He served a mission to England at the turn of the century and then 
joined the staff at the Church Historian's Office. He subsequently served 
for half a century as Church Historian. It was in this capacity that he gained 
Moyle’s respect, though he served in Moyle’s mind as the perfect example 
of nepotism among the church leaders. 

SMOOT, ALPHA (ALLIE) ELDREDGE (1865-1928), a daughter of Hor- 
ace S. Eldredge, married Reed Smoot in 1884 to whom she bore six 
children. She was a girlhood companion of Alice Dinwoodey but snubbed 
the Moyles in Washington, D.C. 

SMOOT, ERNEST W. (1902-69), son of Reed Smoot, lived in the Wash- 
ington, D.C., area all of his life. He first was in the steel business and then 
operated a statistical service in the capital. The Moyles introduced him to 
his first wife. 

SMOOT, REED (1862-1941), was manager of the Provo Woolen Mills 
when he was called to be an apostle in 1900. He was elected to the Senate 
as a Republican in 1903 and served consecutive terms until 1932 when he 
was defeated by Elbert Thomas. His attempt to take his seat in 1903 
resulted in a four-year investigation of the church which brought Mor- 
inonism to the forefront of the public eye. His control over the Utah party 
and his use of ecclesiastical position to further political goals incensed 
Moyle who nearly defeated him for reelection in 1914. The “Apostle-Sena- 
tor” gained national recognition for his leadership and seniority in the 
Senate, his most apparent achievements coming in the field of tariff 

SNOW, FRANKLIN R. (1854-1942), successful businessman and Consoli- 
dated Wagon and Machine Company functionary, served with Moyle on 


Biographical Appendix 

the Ensign Stake high council until becoming counselor in the stake 
presidency to Richard W. Young in 1918. 

SNOW, LEROI C.(1876-1962), a son of Lorenzo Snow, studied shorthand 
and typewriting after which he became his father’s private secretary and 
chief clerk of the tithing office in 1899. Constantly at his father’s side, 
Snow was the subject of rumors that the aging president wanted to make 
him an apostle. 

SNOW, LORENZO (1814-1901), baptized in Ohio in 1836, took several 
missionary assignments until hejoined the Quorum of the Twelve in 1849. 
He was a colonizer of Box Elder County, Utah, and served in the territorial 
legislature for twenty-nine years. In 1898 he became the fifth president of 
the church at the age of eighty-four. Moyle served occasionally as his legal 

SNOW, ZERA (c.1850-1922), a son of Zerubbabel Snow, moved to Port- 
land, Oregon, where he engaged in private law practice until his death. 

SNOW, ZERUBBABEL (1809-88), was baptized in Vermont in 1832. A 
member of Zion’s Camp, he nevertheless remained in Ohio until the 
exodus of the LDS church to the Great Basin. In Utah, Snow was elected 
attorney general of the territory in 1869 and served also as a judge. 

SPENCE, ALEXANDER M. (1850-1926), served with Moyle in the South- 
ern States Mission in 1879. Returning to his home in Wellsville, Utah, 
Spence became Cache Valley correspondent for the Deseret News and 
finally patriarch of the Hyrurn Stake. 

SPENCER, CLARISSA YOUNG (1860-1939), nicknamed “Clint,” married 
John D. Spencer in 1882 after a youthful courtship with Moyle. She later 
became active in literary circles, writing several books and articles about 
her father, Brigham Young, and the romantic histoiy of Utah. Known as 
a walking dictionary of Utah facts and figures, she served as the official 
guide at the Lion House for many years. 

SPENCER, DANIEL S. (1857-1934), a boyhood friend of Moyle, went to 
work as a youth on the Utah Central and Utah Southern railroads. In 1917 
he became general passenger agent for the Oregon Short Line system. 

SPENCER, JOHN D. (1858-1947), graduated from the University of 
Deseret in 1875 and became involved in the insurance business, but his 
main interests were in cultural activities. He organized opera companies, 
dramatic clubs, and art societies in Utah and was the first manager of the 
Salt Lake Symphony. His work in encouraging libraries, recreational 
facilities, and other civic projects gained him a reputation as one of Utah’s 


Biographical Appendix 


most “public-spirited” citizens. At the time of his death, he was the last 
remaining son-in-law of Brigham Young, being the widower of Clarissa 
Young Spencer. 

SPINDEN, HERBERT J. (1879-1958), received his Ph.D. in anthropology 
at Harvard in 1909. He was associated with the American Museum of 
Natural History prior to becoming curator of Mexican archeology and 
ethnology at the Peabody Museum in 1921. After 1929, he served as 
curator of American Indian Art and Primitive Cultures at the Brooklyn 
Museum. He published extensively on the Mayans and the Indians of 
western America. 

SPRY, WILLIAM (1864-1929), third governor of the state, was born in 
England and came to Utah in 1875. Beginning as a common laborer, he 
eventually became director of several leading Utah businesses. Following 
an LDS mission to the Southern States, he entered politics in Tooele 
County and was elected governor as a Republican in 1908 and served until 
1916. President Warren G. Harding named him Commissioner of the 
General Land Office in 1921 and he served as such until his death. 

STANDING, JOSEPH (1854-79), was killed by a mob near Varnell’s 
Station, Georgia, while on his second mission to the Southern States. 
Moyle learned of the murder while proselyting in North Carolina. 

STEPHENS, FRANK B. (1855-1940), was born in Maine and came to Utah 
in 1888 to practice law. He was elected Salt Lake City attorney in 1900 as 
a Democrat and remained active in the party until his death. He was also 
a thirty-second-degree Mason. 

STOCKDALE, WILLIAM, the grandfather of Senator Elbert D. Thomas, 
worked as a stonecutter on Temple Block under James Moyle. 

STOUT, HOSEA (1810-89), converted to Mormonism in Missouri in 1838 
and became a bodyguard to Joseph Smith. He came to Utah in 1848 where 
he remained active in martial affairs, eventually serving as judge-advocate 
of the Nauvoo Legion. He read law and practiced as an attorney between 
missions for the church. 

SUTHERLAND, GEORGE ( 1862-1942), was born in England but grew up 
in Utah County. He graduated from Brigham Young Academy and 
studied law at the University of Michigan where he roomed with Moyle. 
Returning to Utah in 1883, he entered the practice of law in Provo and 
after several terms in the Utah Legislature was elected to Congress as a 
Republican in 1900 and to the U.S. Senate in 1904. After Sutherland was 
defeated for reelection by William H. King in 1916, President Warren G. 
Harding appointed him to the Supreme Court in 1922. He served on the 

Biographical Appendix 

court until 1938 gaining a reputation as a strict constructionist and major 
opponent of the New Deal. 

SWANSON, CLAUDE A. (1862-1939), was a Virginia lawyer who was 
elected to Congress in 1893 and except for a term as governor (1906-10), 
served without interruption in either the House or Senate until Franklin 
Roosevelt named him Secretary of the Navy in 1933. Swanson became 
associated with the president during World War I when they were known 
as allies in the “big Navy” push. 

TALMAGE, JAMES E. (1862-1933), came to Utah from England in 1876. 
He studied under Karl G. Maeser at Brigham Young Academy and then 
obtained his doctorate at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. He sub- 
sequently served as president of the University of Utah before leaving 
education to become a geological engineer. This career was cut short in 
1911 when he became an apostle. Talmage was considered the chief 
theologian of the Mormon church for several years penning numerous 
books on church doctrine. 

TANNER, NATHAN, JR. (1845-1919), grew up in South Cottonwood but 
settled in Ogden where he studied and practiced law. He served for a 
period as Ogden city attorney and later moved to Idaho where he died. 

TAYLOR, A. BRUCE (1853-1924?), a son of John Taylor, was a lawyer in 
Salt Lake City when Moyle returned to Utah in 1 885. Taylor never married 
and left the church. Further details of his life in Utah are obscure. 

TAYLOR, JOHN (1808-87), was born in England and joined the LDS 
church in Canada. He became an apostle in 1838 and was seriously 
wounded in Carthage Jail during the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum 
Smith. Coming to Utah, he published extensively for the church and 
served missions in England and France. A staunch advocate of the 
continuance of polygamy in the face of government persecution, he 
became president of the church at Brigham Young’s death. Moyle re- 
ceived a blessing from him prior to his departure for law school in 1882 
and also rode in his funeral cortege in 1887. 

TAYLOR, JOHN W. (1858-1916), a son ofjohn Taylor, became an apostle 
in 1884 but resigned in 1905 over the end of church-sanctioned polygamy. 
He was excommunicated in 1911. 

TAYLOR, N. W. (1852-84), was born in Surry County, North Carolina, 
joined the Mormon church in 1870, and moved to Utah. In 1879 he 
returned to his home state as a missionary companion to Moyle. Taylor 
subsequently taught school in Weber County until his death. 


Biographical Appendix 

TEASDALE, GEORGE (1831-1907), joined the LDS church in England in 
1852. After coming to Utah, he managed the tithing store and became 
involved in ZCMI. He became an apostle in 1882 and served several 
missions including one to the Southern States. 

TENNANT, THOMAS A. (1855-1920), was born in England but came to 
Utah with his parents who were Mormon converts. After growing up in 
Salt Lake City, where he associated with young Moyle, he settled in 

THATCHER, GEORGE W. (1840-1902), married two of Brigham Young’s 
daughters. A brother to Apostle Moses Thatcher, he served in the Utah 
War, on the pony express, and later as superintendent of the Utah 
Western and Utah Northern railroads. He was Moyle’s chief opponent 
for the Democratic nomination for governor in 1900 after which the 
Thatchers withheld their open support. This clearly cost Moyle much of 
the traditionally Democratic Cache County vote. 

THATCHER, GEORGE W.,JR. (1866-1950), accompanied Moyle and the 
reformatory study group in 1888 as its secretary. He later held minor 
elective positions in Cache County and became a noted leader of the arts, 
serving for several years as head of the music department at Utah State 
Agricultural College. 

THATCHER, MOSES (1842-1909), was a member of the Council of the 
Twelve from 1879 to 1896 when he was dropped from that body, partially 
because of his political aspirations. During Thatcher’s try for the Senate 
in 1897, Moyle threw his support to Joseph L. Rawlins which probably 
turned the tide against the former apostle. Thatcher was the subject of 
much discussion in Moyle’s memoirs. 

THOMAS, ELBERT D. (1883-1953), defeated Reed Smoot in 1932 (as the 
Apostle-Senator tried for a sixth term in the Senate) and was reelected in 
1938 and 1944. Thomas graduated from the University of Utah in 1906 
and, with his wife, served a lengthy LDS mission to Japan. Returning to 
Utah in 1912, he began his long career as professor of ancient languages, 
political science, and oriental history at the University of Utah. He 
received his l’h.D. from the University of California in 1924. Thomas 
wrote several books on both scholarly and religious subjects, held numer- 
ous church and civic positions, and at the time of his death was serving 
high commissioner of the U.S. Trust Territories of the Pacific. 

THOMAS, MORONI J. (1855-1946), was a fixture of the Tabernacle 
Choir, having been a member for fifty years at the time of his death. 

THURMAN, ALLEN G. (1813-95), was born in Virginia but moved as a 


Biographical Appendix 

child to Ohio where he subsequently studied law and was admitted to the 
bar in 1835. After serving in Congress and in the state supreme court, he 
was elected Senator in 1867 following an unsuccessful bid for governor 
against Rutherford B. Hayes. He served two terms in the Senate where he 
was known as the “old Roman,” a doctrinaire, strict constructionist and 
partisan Jeffersonian Democrat. Defeated for reelection in 1881, Thur- 
man traveled extensively and then ran unsuccessfully for vice president 
in 1888 with Grover Cleveland. Additionally, he campaigned actively for 
the U.S. presidential nomination in 1876, 1880, and 1884. 

THURMAN, SAMUEL R. (1850-1941), born in Kentucky, came to Utah 
in 1870 where he became a school teacher. He graduated from the 
University of Michigan Law School in 1880, then practiced law in Provo 
in partnership at various times with David Evans, George Sutherland, and 
William H. King. He served five terms in the legislature and as a member 
of the constitutional convention. After running unsuccessfully for Con- 
gress, he served as chair of the Democratic state committee (1912-16). He 
became justice of the Utah Supreme Court in 1817 and served until 1928. 

TIl.DEN, SAMUEL ( 1814-86), after sporadic education at Yale and in his 
home state of New York, was admitted to the bar in 1841. He became 
influential in Democratic politics in New York City and eventually became 
governor of the state (1874). As a champion of reform, Tilden catapulted 
into the national limelight and was nominated for the presidency in St. 
Louis in 1876 on the second ballot. In the election, Tilden won a plurality 
of the popular vote but was denied office in the famous “Compromise of 
1877” in the House which sent Rutherford B. Hayes to the White House. 
Tilden returned to his law practice, but ill health prevented further 
political activity. 

TORONTO, JOSEPH B. (1854-1933), studied mathematics under W. H. 
Rager and Karl G. Maeser, and ancient languages under Joseph L. 
Rawlings. He entered West Point in 1875 but resigned shortly to take 
Rawlins’s place on the faculty at Deseret University. Becoming professor 
of ancient languages, mathematics, and history, Toronto remained at the 
university until 1889 when he resigned to travel in Europe and the Middle 
East. He resumed his position in 1894 and finally retired in 1904. Known 
for his high intellectuality and honesty, Toronto was something of a 
legend in Utah. 

TULLIDGE, EDWARD W. (1829-94), became a Mormon in England and 
came to Utah in 1860. He edited several newspapers and journals in Utah 
and wrote prolifically. After associating for a time with the Godbeites, he 
joined the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in 
Missouri but soon returned to Salt Lake City. Among his numerous books 


Biographical Appendix 


were histories of Salt Lake City, Joseph Smith, and Brigham Young. He 
also authored several plays and founded various periodicals. 

TUTTLE, DANIEL S. (1837-1923), was a highly educated Episcopalian 
priest who was consecrated “missionary bishop” of Montana, Idaho, and 
Utah in 1867. He founded St. Mark’s Church in Salt Lake City and began 
construction on the cathedral. Tuttle also founded Rowland Hall School 
and St. Mark’s Hospital. In 1886 he left his frontier diocese for a new post 
in Missouri and subsequently became presiding bishop of the Episcopal 
church (1903). 

UNDERWOOD, OSCAR W. (1862-1929), longtime senator from Ala- 
bama and Democratic presidential hopeful in 1912 and 1924, authored 
the Underwood Tariff of 1913 which was the Wilson administration’s 
answer to the protectionism of the previous Republican regimes. Under- 
wood was also extremely interested in foreign policy and participated in 
several international conferences including the Washington Armament 
Conference of 1922. He was born in Kentucky, raised in Minnesota, 
educated in Virginia, and first entered Congress in 1895 after practicing 
law in Alabama. 

VAN CO I'I , RAY (1869-1944), Moyle’s law partner for many years and 
also his brother-in-law, graduated from the University of Utah in 1891, 
taught school for a period, and then received his law degree from Cornell 
in 1895. Van Cott was an ardent Democrat and held various elective and 
appointive offices in the state. 

VAN COTT, WALDEMAR (1859-1940), attended the University of Michi- 
gan Law School with Moyle. Graduating in 1885, he practiced in partner- 
ship with George Sutherland and Parley L. Williams and later in various 
other firms. He gained recognition in 1903 when he represented Reed 
Smoot during the Senate hearings. Van Cott was also a member of the 
University of Utah board of regents and a director of several banks and 

VARNEY, SAMUEL (1806-87), was baptized in Vermont in 1855 and 
immigrated to Utah the following year. After a short residence in Lehi, 
he moved to the Fifteenth Ward in Salt Lake City where he served as 
tithing clerk to bishops Robert Burton and Joseph Pollard. 

VERNON, FRANCIS MAUGHAN, wife of Weston Vernon, Brighim 
Young College professor and later real estate executive in Logan, sened 
as Democratic National Committeewoman opposite Moyle in the 192>s. 

WADELL, ISAAC, was a member of the legislature in 1888, but additioial 
details of his life are obscure. 

Biographical Appendix 

WALKER, JOSEPH R„ SR. (1836-1901), born in England, came to Utah 
in 1852. In 1858, with his brothers, Walker opened a dry goods store at 
Camp Floyd and with the profit from its operation opened a large general 
store and a bank in Salt Lake City. Additionally, he engaged in mining 
operations principally in Montana and became one of the wealthiest men 
in Utah. 

WALL, E.A. (1839-1920), born in Indiana, moved west in 1860 where he 
became interested in mining and engaged in freighting between Utah and 
Montana. Settling first in Idaho, he entered politics and served in the 
Idaho legislature. In 1885 he came to Utah and mined at Mercur and 
Bingham where he discovered the copper deposits which led to the 
formation of the Utah Copper Company. Wall developed other mines in 
Utah and Nevada and, by the turn of the century, had amassed a fortune. 

WALLACE, HENRY A. (1878-1965), was an agricultural geneticist and 
economist in Iowa when he was appointed Secretary of Agriculture by 
Franklin Roosevelt. Despite Wallace’s controversial ideas while in the 
cabinet, Roosevelt chose him as his running mate in 1940. As vice 
president, he traveled widely and became outspoken in his concern for 
international social welfare. He became Secretary of Commerce in 1945 
but soon broke with Truman over the beginning of the Cold War. Wallace 
then bolted the Democratic Party and ran for U.S. president in 1948 on 
the Progressive ticket. 

WALLACE, WILLIAM R. (1865-1957), highly successful in business, 
industry and civic service, served at various times as Democratic state 
chairman and national committeeman. He failed in a try for the Senate 
nomination in 1934, but his major interest was in the Utah Oil Refining 
Company which he founded in 1916. His most noted public endeavors 
were in the field of water conservation as he served on various water and 
power boards until shortly before his death. 

WALSH, THOMAS J. (1859-1933), was admitted to the bar in his home 
state of Wisconsin in 1884, but he moved west finally settling in Helena, 
Montana, in 1890. After several attempts to gain federal elective office, 
he was elected to the Senate as a Democrat in 1912. His career in 
Washington was unspectacular until his committee on public lands ex- 
posed what became known as the Teapot Dome Scandal (1922-24). He 
subsequently served as chair of the Democratic National Conventions of 
1924 and 1932. Franklin Roosevelt appointed him U.S. Attorney General 
in 1933, but the senator died before he could assume office. 

WARRUM, NOBLE (1864-1951), was bom in Indiana and received legal 
training at the University of Michigan. Warrum settled in Logan, Utah, in 


Biographical Appendix 

the 1890s from which he went to the legislature and the constitutional 
convention. He then became editor of the Salt Lake Herald until its 
purchase by Republican interests. In 1914 he was appointed postmaster 
in Salt Lake City and later joined the editorial staff of the Salt Lake Tribune. 
Moyle counted him as a close ally. 

WELLING, MILTON H. (1876-1947), following attendance at the Univer- 
sity of Utah and a mission for the I.DS church, became president of the 
Malad Stake and later of the Bear River Stake. He was elected to the Utah 
legislature in 1911 and then to Congress in 1917, serving until 1921. A 
Democrat, he also served as Utah Secretary of State from 1928 to 1936, 
following which he became a U.S. Interior Department functionary. 

WELLS, CHARLES H. (1870-1945), a son of Daniel H. Wells, was a noted 
Utah banker and contractor. He was associated with Moyle in the Utah 
Tropical Fruit Company as its treasurer. 

WELLS, DANIEL H. (1814-91), was living in Commerce, Illinois, in 1839 
when the Mormons moved there and built the city of Nauvoo. Though he 
did not join the church until 1846, he served as Nauvoo city councilman, 
alderman, university regent, and as general in the Nauvoo Legion. In Utah 
he became an apostle and served as Brigham Young’s second counselor 
(1857-77). He also served a lengthy term as mayor of Salt Lake City. Moyle 
witnessed him in action during the election day riots in 1874 and in 
addresses in the Tabernacle and at the School of the Prophets. 

WELLS, EMMELINE B. (1828-192 1), was baptized in 1842. When her first 
husband deserted her, she joined the household of Newel K. Whitney who 
died in 1850. She subsequently married Daniel H. Wells and entered a 
literary career dedicated to the advancement of women. Publishing in the 
Women’s Exponent and elsewhere, she identified closely with the Relief 
Society and became a forceful spokesperson for women’s rights and such 
issues as prohibition and suffrage. She was the fourth general president 
of the Relief Society. 

WELLS, HEBER M. (1859-1938), a son of Daniel H. Wells, became 
governor of Utah in 1896 after serving in the Utah constitutional conven- 
tion. He was reelected in 1900, defeating Moyle by just over three 
thousand votes. Following his two terms as governor, Wells engaged in 
banking until 1913 when he was elected Salt Lake City commissioner. He 
later worked for Internal Revenue in California before joining the edito- 
rial staff of the Salt Lake Herald. 


WEST, CALEB (1844-1909), was the last territorial governor of Utah. He 
was a Confederate veteran who was appointed governor of the territory 

Biographical Appendix 

by Grover Cleveland in 1885, succeeded by Arthur L. Thomas in 1889, 
and then reappointed by Cleveland in 1893. West worked fervently to 
prevent Utah statehood and proposed the disfranchisement of Mormons 
in Idaho, but nevertheless worked diligently to obtain pardons for polyga- 
mous Mormons serving terms in prison. He was also noted for signing 
the first bonding measure for Utah in 1888. 

WEST, WILBUR, was the LDS mission secretary in the Eastern States 
when Moyle assumed the presidency of the mission in 1928. 

WHITMER, DAVID (1805-88), came into contact with Mormonism in 
1828 when he met Oliver Cowdery in Palmyra. Much of the work on the 
Book of Mormon subsequently took place at the home of his father, Peter 
Whitmer, Sr. David was baptized by Joseph Smith in 1829 and shortly 
afterwards saw the golden plates of the Book of Mormon in the hands of 
an angel and in the presence of Smith, Cowdery, and Martin Harris. Thus 
numbered among the “three witnesses,” Whitmer became a leading figure 
in early Mormonism but was excommunicated in 1838 following a pro- 
longed dispute with Smith. In spite of this, he reaffirmed his testimony as 
a witness to the golden plates during an interview with Moyle in 1885. 

WHITNEY, HELEN KIMBALL (see Helen Kimball Whitney Bourne) 

WHITNEY, HORACE G. ( 1858-1920), entered journalism in the footsteps 
of his father, Horace K. Whitney. During the 1880s the younger Whitney 
was city editor and later manager of the Salt Lake Herald and then went 
to work for the Deseret News in the 1890s. As general manager of the News, 
he reconditioned its financial operation and increased its circulation 
dramatically. He was also secretary-treasurer of the Utah-Idaho Sugar 
Company and a prominent patron of the arts in Utah. 

WHITNEY, HORACE K. (1823-84), a son of Newel K. Whitney, was a 
bookkeeper in the office of Brigham Young. Well-educated and articulate, 
yet overly modest, Whitney left to his children the desire for literary and 
official distinction. 

WHITNEY, ORSON F. (1855-1931), an educator and forensic expert, 
served as bishop of the Eighteenth Ward prior to his call to the apostleship 
in 1906. He wrote prolifically, including a four-volume History of Utah. 

WILLIAMS, PARLEY L. (1842-1936), was born and raised in Illinois and 
later moved to Wyoming to practice law. In 1871 he came to Salt Lake 
City where he gradually became involved in politics and as attorney for 
several railroads. Williams also served several terms in the legislature as 
a Democrat. 


Biographical Appendix 

WILLIAMS, WILLIAM N. (1851-1927), was born in Wales and came to 
Utah in 1861. After a mission and successful business enterprises, he was 
elected to the legislature in 1900 as a Republican. 

WILSON, WOODROW (1856-1924), born in Virginia to a Presbyterian 
minister, graduated from Princeton in 1879, practiced law in Georgia, and 
then entered graduate school at Johns Hopkins University where he 
received a Ph.D. in political science in 1886. After teaching at Bryn Mawr 
and Wesleyan universities, he joined the faculty at Princeton in 1890. 
Following a controversial but brilliant administration as president of the 
institution, Wilson was elected governor of Newjersey in 1910 and to the 
presidency in 1912. His two terms in the White House need no explana- 
tion here, but his failure to secure a ratification of the Treaty of Versailles 
with its League of Nations provision seriously damaged his health leading 
to what Moyle styled as his “martyrdom.” 

WINDER, JOHN R. (1821-1910), who served as first counselor tojoseph 
F. Smith (1901-10), joined the LDS church in England and came to Utah 
in 1853. After a career as a leather maker and officer in the Nauvoo 
Legion, Winder became a counselor in the Presiding Bishopric in 1887 
where he served until his call to the First Presidency. Moyle regarded him 
as a Democrat but a silent one. 

WINES, IRA D. (1844-1923), was a wealthy Lehi cattleman who joined 
Moyle and James Chipman in founding the abortive Utah Tropical Fruit 
Company in Mexico in 1907. 

WISE, JASPER, was among the seventeen persons Moyle baptized in 
Burke County, North Carolina. He later moved with his family to Salem, 

WITTE, LINDSAY, was a North Carolina farmer whose wife joined the 
church. During a threatened mob attack, Witte defended Moyle and his 
companion. Moyle saw him again briefly in Winston-Salem as the Utahn 
traveled through the South as Assistant Secretary of the Treasuiy. 

WOOD, DANIEL (1800-92), was baptized by Brigham Young in Canada 
in 1833. He moved with the Saints through Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois, 
eventually coming to Utah in 1848. After a brief residence in Salt Lake 
City, Wood moved his family to Davis County and founded Woods Cross. 
There he lived out his life and prospered as a farmer. He had six wives 
and many children, one of whom was Elizabeth, the mother ofjames H. 


WOOD, ELIZABETH (see Elizabeth Wood Moyle) 

Biographical Appendix 

WOOD, WILFORD C. (1893-1968), was Moyle’s cousin. A furrier by 
trade, Wood owned in addition large tracts of land in Davis County, was 
an amateur historian, and maintained a private museum of Mormon 
artifacts. The church employed him as a purchasing agent and he was 
responsible for the acquisition of numerous Mormon historical sites 
around the nation. 

WOODIN, WILLIAM H. (1868-1934), was Secretary of the Treasury when 
Moyle was appointed Commissioner of Customs. Woodin was born into 
a wealthy Pennsylvania family and by 1922 had inherited the presidency 
of the American Car and Foundry Company. He was also heavily involved 
in numerous other concerns particularly in banking and railroads when 
Roosevelt appointed him to the Treasury in 1933. He served only briefly, 
however, as ill health forced his resignation in January 1934. He was a 
Republican but had supported Alfred E. Smith for the White House in 
1928 and 1932. 

WOODRUFF, ABRAHAM OWEN (1872-1904), a son of Wilford Wood- 
ruff, served a mission in the 1890s and was ordained an apostle in 1897. 
He died of smallpox seven years later. 

WOODRUFF, WILFORD (1807-98), was fourth president of the LDS 
church. Joining the Mormons in New York in 1833, he quickly became 
known for his missionary zeal and was ordained an apostle in 1839. To 
the aging Woodruff, known for his soft-spoken spirituality, fell the task of 
ending church-sanctioned polygamy which he did with the famous mani- 
festo of 1890. 

WOODS, GEORGE L. (1832-90), was born in Missouri but eventually 
made his way to Oregon where he became active in Republican politics. 
He was elected governor of the state in 1866. Failing in an attempt at 
reelection, Woods was appointed governor of Utah in 1870 and took 
office in 1871. During his nearly four years in the territory, he arrogantly 
spurned the Mormon leaders, consistently sided with the anti-Mormon 
clique, and alienated the bulk of the population with his ill-conceived 
diatribes against the church. He failed to achieve reappointment and left 
the territory in 1874. Woods later practiced law in San Francisco. 

YOUNG, ALFALES (1853-1920), a son of Brigham Young, preceded 
Moyle in the University of Michigan Law School, graduating in 1877. 
Following his admission to the Utah bar, however, Young rarely practiced 
law, devoting his energies instead to journalism. An avid reader, he did 
editorial work with Salt Lake City newspapers, the Herald, Democrat, and 
Deseret News. Moyle’s reference to Alfales having left the church probably 


Biographical Appendix 


came from his marriage to an Episcopalian schoolteacher, Ada Code, in 

YOUNG, ALONZO (1858-1918), a son of Brigham Young, workedn the 
ZCMI organization and served on the Ensign Stake high counci with 
James H. Moyle. 

YOUNG, BRIGHAM (1801-77), was second president of the LDS chtrch. 
Acknowledged as one of America’s great colonizers, he led the Mornons 
from 1844 until his death and was the dominating presence in Utah 
throughout Moyle’s youth. He joined the church in 1832 and becane an 
apostle in 1835. In addition to his ecclesiastical duties, he was also 
governor of Utah Territory from 1850 to 1858, superintendent of Iidian 
affairs from 1851 to 1858, a founder of about 350 communities in tie Far 
West, and founder of scores of business enterprises. His more pomlar 
fame came because of his many wives and large family. Moyle stood gjard 
over his body as it lay in state in 1877 and additionally had many memories 
of seeing the prophet in life. 

YOUNG, BRIGHAM, JR. (1836-1903), was born in Kirtland, Ohio, and 
drove an ox team to Utah in 1847 at the age of twelve. After a brief career 
in business, he was ordained an apostle in 1 864 and four years later joined 
the Quorum of the Twelve. In 1869 he went to Cache Valley to preside 
over the Saints there but returned to Salt Lake City in 1873 to assist his 
father. He was indicted for polygamy and spent the 1880s “hiding out.” 
In 1890 he was called to preside over the European Mission but returned 
to Salt Lake City in 1 893 after all charges against him were dismissed. At 
the time of his death, he was president of the Quorum of the Twelve. 

YOUNG, BRIGHAM HEBER (1845-1928), was born in Nauvoo and 
arrived in the Salt Lake Valley in 1848. There is evidence, as Moyle 
indicated, that Heber was ordained an apostle by his father although never 
numbered among the general authorities. He worked on the railroad and 
in his later years for ZCMI and in the insurance and real estate business. 

YOUNG, CLARISSA (CLINT) (see Clarissa Young Spencer) 

YOUNG, FERAMORZ LITTLE (1858-81), a son of Brigham Young, died 
at the age of twenty-three returning from a mission to Mexico. He received 
an appointment to Annapolis in 1874 but resigned after two years. In 1879 
he graduated from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in New York with a 
degree in engineering. 

YOUNG, HARRIET AMELIA FOLSOM (1830-1910), became the plural 
wife of Brigham Young in 1863. It was for her that he built the Gardo 
House which subsequently became known as the Amelia Palace. 

Biographical Appendix 

YOUNG, HARRIET (HATTIE) HOOPER (1861-1939), a youthful ac- 
quaintance of Moyle, was the daughter of William H. Hooper. She 
married Brigham Young’s son, Willard, in 1882. 

YOUNG, JOHN W. (1844-1924), a son of Brigham Young, was ordained 
an apostle at the age of eleven but never served on the Quorum of the 
Twelve. At nineteen he was appointed assistant counselor in the First 
Presidency and subsequently served as his father’s first counselor. His real 
interests were in railroad building, and his efforts in this regard attracted 
for him widespread notice throughout the West. But by the turn of the 
century, he was deeply in debt and trying various schemes to recoup. 
Failing completely, Young died while working as an elevator operator in 
New York City. 

YOUNG, JOSEPH (1797-1881), the brother of Brigham Young, joined the 
church in 1832. After service in Zion’s Camp, Young became the second 
of the original presidents of the Seventy in 1 835. Persevering through the 
early trials of the church, he came to Utah in 1850. 

YOUNG, JOSEPH A. (1834-75), a son of Brigham Young, was born in 
Kirtland, Ohio, and spent his young adulthood on missions for the LDS 
church. He then operated a lumber business, took subcontracts on the 
Union Pacific, and supervised construction of the Utah Central Railroad. 
Serving several colonizing missions, he organized the United Order in 
Sevier County. 

YOUNG, JOSEPH DON CARLOS (1855-1938), a son of Brigham Young, 
received a degree in engineering in 1879 from Rensselaer Polytechnic 
Institute in New York. Contributing significantly to Utah architecture. 
Young served as architect on the Salt Lake temple during the final phases 
of its construction. He also designed the Church Administration Building 
and a multitude of other important Utah structures. After a mission to 
the Southern States in the 1890s, he taught at Brigham Young Academy 
in Provo and continued his profession as an architect in Salt Lake City. 

YOUNG, LEGRAND (1840-1921), was a son of Joseph Young (Brigham’s 
brother). He preceded Moyle at the University of Michigan Law School 
graduating in 1871. He subsequently served as legal counsel to Brigham 
Young though his partner was the gentile Parley L. Williams. After 
statehood, Young became district judge. Prior to 1891, he was an impor- 
tant member of the Peoples Party but took a minimal political role. 

YOUNG, OWEN D. (1875-1962), industrialist and monetary expert from 
New York, entered the national spotlight from 1919 to 1930 at a series of 
international conferences concerning German reparations and the stabi- 


Biographical Appendix 

lization of the German economy. Young rendered “dollar-a-year” sendee 
to five presidents but refused to seek public office himself though men- 
tioned often as a Democratic presidential possibility. For several years he 
was chairman of the board of General Electric and was the first chairman 
of the Radio Corporation of America. 

YOUNG, RICHARD W. (1858-1919), born in the Beehive House, was the 
grandson of Brigham Young through Joseph A. Young. He worked as an 
apprentice carpenter on Temple Block and on the railroad prior to his 
appointment to West Point. Commissioned in the artillery in 1882, he 
then entered Columbia College Law School, graduating in 1884. Follow- 
ing a notable career both in the army and in the practice of law in Salt 
Lake City, he served with distinction in the Spanish-American War after 
which he was tendered the brevet of Brigadier General . In 1 904 he became 
the first president of the Ensign Stake in Salt Lake City. 

YOUNG, SEYMOUR B. (1837-1924), a son of Joseph Young (Brigham’s 
brother), survived as a baby the Haun’s Mill Massacre. After several 
missions for the Mormon church, Young entered into the study and 
practice of medicine and received his M.D. at the University Medical 
College of New York. He was called to the First Council of the Seventy in 

YOUNG, WILLARD (1852-1936), a son of Brigham Young, entered West 
Point in 1871 as the first Mormon to enroll in the U.S. Military Academy. 
In 1875 he graduated with a commission in the Corps of Engineers and 
in 1882 married Harriet (Hattie) Hooper. Among his notable successes 
in the army was construction of the Cascade locks on the Columbia River 
between 1883 and 1887. He also served in various church and Utah state 
positions between his several terms with the military. Young’s going in 
and out of the army to take church assignments apparently convinced 
Moyle that his life was somewhat less than content. 

ZANE, CHARLES S. (1831-1915), first chief justice of the state of Utah, 
came to Salt Lake City in 1884 as judge of the territorial supreme court. 
He had previously served on the bench in Illinois. Zane failed in an 
attempt for a second term as chief justice in 1899 and opened a private 
practice in Salt Lake City. 

ZANE, JOHN M., a son of Judge Charles S. Zane, was Moyle’s law partner 
along with George P. Costigan from 1891 to 1899. Additional details of 
his life are obscure. 



Academy Building, 55n29 
Adams, Orval, 287-88, 312 
African Americans, 9 1 
Agricultural College, Utah State, 143, 
145, 250 

Allen, Clarence E„ 147, 162, 312 
Allen James B., xxv 
Alpine, Utah, 38-41, 52 
Amelia Palace, 60 

American Federation of Labor, 203 
American history, importance to, xii, 
xvi, xviii 

Amussen Building, 12 
Anderson, W. F„ 138, 139, 312 
Anderson, John M., 250, 312 
Andersonjames H., 4n7 
Angell Truman O., 45, 312 
Ann Arbor, Michigan, 112-25 
Annapolis (Naval Academy), 14, 108 
Arrington, Leonard J., xi-xii, xx, xxv, 

1 1 3n 1 1 

Arthur Chester A., 6 
Asheville, North Carolina, 102 
Ashton, Cora Lindsay, 312 
Ashton Jedediah W„ 78, 313 
Ashton Brigham W., 78, 312 
Ashton Edward, 312-13 
Ashton Edward T„ 77-78, 96, 313 
Assembly Hall, 44 

Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Rail- 
road, 89 

Baker Newton D., 207, 230, 313 
Baltimore, Maryland, 7 
Bamberger, Clarence, 189, 313 
Bamberger Interurban Railroad, 76 
Bamberger, Simon, 179, 313 
Baptists, 102 

Barlow James A., 79, 97-98, 313 
Barnes William, 46, 313 
Barnum Charles, 78, 314 
Barton, Joseph, 146, 314 
Baskin, R. N., 65, 314 
Bean, Willard W„ 244, 314 
Beck, Jonas N„ 91, 92, 97, 102, 314 
beer, 81 

Benson, Ezra T., 303, 314 

Berry William S., 103,314 

Big Cottonwood Canyon, 75 

Bingham Canyon, 72 

Bishop Francis M„ 57, 314 

Bitter Creek, Wyoming, 51 

Bitton, Davis, xxv 

Black Jeremiah S., 24, 314-15 

blacks in South, 91 

Blaine, James G., 124, 315 

Bliss, Charles, 90, 91, 315 

Book of Mormon: evidence of, 252- 



59; truth of, xv; Wallace’s assess- 
ment of, 282nl3; witnesses to, 

Boone, Edward, 89, 315 
Bountiful, Utah, 69 

Bourne, Helen Kimball Whitney, 128, 


Bowen, Albert E., 287-88, 315 
Bowery, 44 

Bowman, John F., 3, 315 
Box Elder County, 146 
Boyle, Henry G., 91,315 
Brain, Charles J., 100, 315 
Brigham Young University, 138 
Brigham Young Academy, 250 
Brighton, Utah: berries near, 75; cot- 
tage in, 138, 39, 289 
Brooklyn, 242 

Brossard, Edgar B., 208, 265-66, 281, 


Brown, Arthur, 162, 165, 316 
Brown, D. Glenn, 250-51, 316 
Bryan, William Jennings, 6, 194, 227, 
236, 316 

Burke County, North Carolina, 92, 98 
Burt, Andrew, 134,316 
Burton, Lafayette G., 125, 316 
Burton Robert T., 60, 109, 125, 316 
Burton, John H., 125, 316 
Burton, Hosea M., 78, 316 
Bussel, James, 10, 317 
Butcherville, 87 
Butler, Benjamin F., 122, 317 
Bywater, George, 68, 317 
Bywater, Joseph G., 78, 317 

Cache County, 145, 176-77 
Cahoon, Andrew, 48, 318 
Caine, Annie Hooper, 129, 318 
Caine, John T„ 158,318 

California Corrals, 72 
Callis, Charles A., 103, 318 
Callister, Edward H., 4n7 
Calvin John, 30 

campaign of 1900, 176-77, 263 
campaign of 1904, 177-78, 263 
campaign of 1908, 194 
campaign of 1914, 263 
campaign of 1928, 236-37 
Cannell, Margaret Anna. See Margaret 
Anna Cannell Moyle 
Cannon, Abraham H., 298, 301, 318 
Cannon, Frank J.: as senator, 165; 

childhood friendship of, 61; com- 
pared to Roberts, 162; departure 
from Utah of, 122; life of, 318- 
19, voting for, 224 
Cannon, John M., 108, 319 
Cannon, Joseph J., 191, 240, 319 
Cannon, Angus M., 108-9, 123, 171, 

Cannon, George Q.: abilities of, 34, 
108-9, 174; as delegate, 117; as 
political master, 169-70; aspira- 
tions of, 298, 300-1; at Gardo 
House, 149-52; blessing of, 1 10- 
11; death of, 173, 175; life of, 

319; presence of, 132; Republi- 
canism of, 156; senate campaign 
of, 174 

Cannon, George M., 14, 319 
Capitol Hill (Utah), 70, 89 
Carlton, Ambrose B., 157, 319 
Carnegie Institute, 252, 256-57 
carpetbaggers, 24, 155-57 
Carver, Thomas Nixon, 54, 319-20 
Catawba River, ministry along, 95-98 
Catholic church, 30, 66, 307 
Charlotte, North Carolina, 100 
Chattanooga, Tennessee, 90-91 
Chicago, 121-24 



Chichen Itza, 252 
Chipman, James, 253, 320 
Cholula, Mexico, 253 
Christian Science, 189 
church: animosity of, to New Deal, 
279-80; change in, 21-22; conser- 
vatism in, 21-23, 288; courts, 10- 
11; devotion to, 17-21, 116-20; 
district schools of, 55-56; divine 
guidance of, 33-35; in Washing- 
ton, 208-10; law and, 109-11, 135- 
37; nature of, hierarchy, 22-23, 
291-308; opposition to, in Michi- 
gan, 117; opposition of, 105; per- 
secution of, xiv, 63-64, 101-4; 
politicalism in, 172-74, 225-28; 
positions in, 239-40; Republicans 
persecute, 155-60; truth of, 36 
Church Historical Department, xi, 
xvi, xxv 

church leadership: and end of Peo- 
ples party, 151-52; assessment of, 
291-308; attacks on Democracy, 
286-88; conservatism of, 21-23, 
29; errors of, 29-31, 35, 187; 
hard experience with, 185-88; in- 
heritance of, 291-308; interfer- 
ence in politics of, 3-4, 7, 23-24; 
opposition of, to F.D.R., 282-88; 
patterns of, 31-33; Republican- 
ism of, 3-4, 171, 194-96, 216-17; 
shift to GOP of, 260-61; support 
of, for GOP (1904), 177; weak- 
nesses of, 35, 306-8; wealth of, 

23, 29 

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day 
Saints. See church 

Church Security Program, 277-80, 282 
City and County Building, 73 
City Creek, 7 1 

Clark Diagramming System, 55 
Clark John, 60, 320 
Clark, Joshua Reuben, Jr.: as ambassa- 
dor to Mexico, 254-55; called to 

First Presidency, 173; career of, 
36; influence of, xxiv, 282-88; in- 
novations of, 209; life of, 320; op- 
position of, to F.D.R., 26-27; po- 
litical errors of, 32-33; partisan- 
ship of, 173-74 

Clawson, Hiram, 24, 158, 320 
Clawson, Rudger, 214, 306, 320 
Cleveland, Grover: support of, for 

Utah, 24, 155-56, 194; life of, 320- 
21; nominated for president, 6, 
30, 121-24; tariff and, 196 
Clift, Francis D. (Dan), 72, 321 
Clift House, 53 
Coinage Commission, 199 
Columbia Broadcasting Company, 250 
Communism, 29 
Con Wagon Affair, 188-90 
Confederacy, 14n22 
Consolidated Wagon and Machine 
Company, 3, 188-90 
Coolidge, Calvin, 235, 283, 321 
Corinne, Utah, 51-52 
Corinth, Mississippi, 90 
Cornwall, England, 97 
Cortez, Hernan, 258 
Costigan, George P., 321 
Cottonwood, home at, 72, 107, 138, 
214, 289 

Council House, 55n29, 57 
county attorney. Salt Lake, elected as, 

courts, church, 10-11 

Cowdery, Oliver, 126, 321 

Cowley, Matthias F., 303-4, 322 

Cowley, Matthew, xiii, 321-22 

Cox, James M., 6 

Creer, Frank B., 322 

Creer, Sara Virginia Moyle, x, xi, xii, 

2, 138, 322 

Cuernavaca, Mexico, 254-55 



Cullen Hotel, 53-54 
Cummings, Janies W., 79, 322 
Cummings, Homer S., 230, 322 
currency reform, 201-5 
Customs Bureau, Moyle heads, xv, 33- 
34, 246, 265-73 
Cutler, John C., 322 

Daniels, Josephus, 207, 226, 322-23 
Darke, Sidney W„ 108, 323 
David (biblical), 171-72, 286 
Davis, Jefferson, 14n22 
Davis, John W., 6, 234, 323 
Davis County, 145 
deal for statehood, 157-60 
Dee, Thomas D, 323 
Democratic National conventions, 6, 
30, 212-24, 196-97, 229, 233 
Democratic party: church opposition 
to, 282-84; correctness of 216-19; 
devotion to, xii, xiv, xv, 114, 148- 
52; difficulties of, in Utah, 153- 
54; early loyalty to, 122-23; fa- 
vors of, 2 1 1 ; intimacy with lead- 
ers of, xvi; Mormons 
traditionally support, 162-66; 
260-61; support of Utah by, 155- 

Democratic State Conventions, 23, 30 
Denby, Edwin, 323 
Denver, 89 

Denver and Rio Grande Station, 161 
Depression, Great, 87, 249 
Dern, George H., 275-76, 323 
Deseret Agricultural and Manufactur- 
ing Association, 141 
Deseret Hospital, 54 
Deseret Livestock Company, 49n21 
Deseret Savings Bank, 174 
Deseret National Bank, 24 

Deseret University, 54-57, 107, 112, 

Deseret News : articles of, 240; attacks 
of, 239; attacks of, on League, 

283- 84; Penrose editor of, 158- 
59; “neutrality” of, 171, 279-80, 

284- 88; playwriter for, 49; poli- 
cies of, 4-5; 192; office of, 70; op- 
position of, to F.D.R., xviin4, 27- 
29, 196, 226, 260-61 

Dewey, Thomas E., 28 
Dinwoodey, Henry, 86, 129, 137, 214, 


Dinwoodey Furniture, 49 
Dinwoodey, Alice Evelyn. See Alice 
Evelyn Dinwoodey Moyle, 

Dixie wine, 81 

Doheny, Edward L„ 232, 234, 235, 


Dover, Joseph R., 46, 324 
Dunbar, Elizabeth (Libby) Hooper, 

59, 128, 324 

Dunbar, David C., 128, 324 
Duncanson, Mary, 10, 324 
Dwyer Robert J., 82n70 

Eagle Gate, 70-71 

Eastern States Mission: building pro- 
gram in, 246-49; description of, 
242-46; innovation in, 250-52, 
258-69; president of, xv, 19-20, 

33, 171, 155-160, 209, 239-64 
Eberle, Myrna, x 
Eccles, Henry, 45, 324 
Eccles, Marriner S., 274-75, 324-25 
editorial procedures, x, xxi, xxiii-xxv 
Edmunds Act (1882), 155 
Edmunds-Tucker Act (1887), 155 
Eighteenth Ward, 16n25, 17, 71 
Eldredge, Allie. See Allie Eldredge 

election riot of 1874, 64-65 



Endowment House, 79, 124 
Englebrecht liquor case, 65 
English Mormons, 88 
Ensign Stake, xv, 136, 171, 239 
Ephra : m, Utah, 147 
Episcopal church, 66 
Evans, David, 119 

Evans, John Henry, xviii-xix, xx, 1-2, 5, 

family history, devotion to, xviii 
Farley, James A., 265, 325 
Farr, Aaron F„ 175, 325 
Faust, H.J. (Doc), 73, 325 
Faust Livery Stable, 73 
Federal Reserve Board, 213, 218 
Federal Bunch, 4, 160, 190-94 
Federal Heights, 71, 87 
Ferguson, Fergus, 117-18, 325 
Ferguson, Jeannette Sharp, 1 18, 326 
Fifteenth Ward: farewell in, 95; first 
gentile in, 13; growing up in, xiv, 
76-80; leaders of, 70; lowly status 
of, 17, 108, 124-25; residents of, 
63; social status in, 59-60 
Finance Corporation, U.S., 228 
Folsom, William, 49-50, 326 
Fullmer, Eugene B., 46, 326 

Gardo House Conference, 148-52 
Garfield, James A., 6 
Gates, Thomas S., 254, 326 
Gathering, The, 86-88 
Genealogical and Historical Associa- 
tion, James Moyle, xii, xxv 
genealogy, devotion to, xviii 
General Electric, 186 
gentiles: conflict with Mormons, 7, 63- 
67, 74, 148-52; first, in Fifteenth 
Ward, 82; in Utah, 11,13 

Gibbs, George F., 34n44, 326 
Gibbs letter, 34 
Gillespie, Peter, 38, 45-46, 326 
Glass, Carter, 204-5, 226, 230, 237, 
274, 326 

Gorgas, William C., 206, 327 
governor, races for, xv, 105, 176-78 
Grant, George D., 92, 327 
Grant, Heber J.: ability of, to raise 

money, 34-35; assessment of, 301- 
3, 306-7; becomes president, 

173; call from, 240, 242; car ride 
with, 2-5; compared to Smith, 

188; defense of Smoot of, 221- 
22; Democracy of, 261; errors of, 
forgotten, 187; Federal Bunch 
and, 160; greatness of, xviin4; 
John W. Young and, 296; League 
and, 222, 223-24; letters of, on 
Smoot, 216-25; memories of, 71; 
parentage of, 32; political ideas 
of, 282-88; prejudice of, against 
F.D.R., 25-27, 288; prosperity un- 
der, 8; resistance of, to Washing- 
ton branch, 209; reverence for, 
xiv; silence of, on politics, 160; 
spirituality of, 305; Sutherland 
and, 115; visit of, to Washington, 
212; voting record of, 282-83; 
Word of Wisdom and, 134 
Grant, Jedediah M„ 32, 92, 302 
Grant, Joshua, 92 
Grant, Rachel Ivins, 302 
Griggs, Thomas C., 80, 327 
“gumshoers,” 153-54, 160-61 

Hague, Frank, 230-31, 327 
Haines, Harry, 14, 48, 51, 56, 327 
Hamengog, 40 

Hampton, Benjamin, 81, 98-99, 138 
Harding, Warren G„ 6, 201, 228, 283, 

Harding, William P.G., 213, 328 



Harker, Benjamin, 91, 328 
Harris, Fisher, 162, 328 
Harris, Martin, 328 
Harrisville, Utah, 91 
Harvard University, 252 
Haslam, John R„ 115, 328-29 
Haun’s Mill Massacre, 1 19 
Havana, 255 

Hayes, Rutherford B., 329 
hazing, college, 116 
Henderson, William, 162, 163, 329 
Herrick, John L„ 3, 329 
Hickman, William, 72, 329 
Hinckley, Gordon B., xx, ln2 
Hislop, John, 51, 329 
Historical Department of the LDS 

church. See Church Historical De- 

Hooper, Annie. See Annie Hooper 

Hooper Building, 131 
Hooper, Elizabeth (Libby). See Eliza- 
beth (Libby) Hooper Dunbar 
Hooper, Harriet (Hattie). See Harriet 
(Hattie) Hooper Young 
Hooper, Mary. See Mary Hooper Jen- 

Hooper, William H„ 58-59, 60, 329-30 

Hoover, Herbert, xviin4, 330 

hotels in Salt Lake City, 53-54 

Hotel Utah, 81, 200 

Hot Spring Lake, 76 

Houston, D.F., 205, 330 

Howell, Joseph, 147, 162, 330 

Howells, Thomas F., 46, 131-32, 330 

Huber, Pauline, xxv 

Hull, Cordell, 227, 230, 276-77, 330 

Hunn, Thomas, 80, 330 

Hussey Bank, 73 

Hutchinson, W.R., 120, 330 

Hyde, Orson, 44, 330-1 

Independence Hall, 74 
Indians, 39, 70, 74-76, 115 
Internal Revenue Service, 228 
Interurban Railroad, 161 
Iverson, Gustave A., 281, 331 
Ivins Anthony W.: Democracy of, xvii, 
224, 261, 262, 282, 286; life of, 
331; qualities of, 32, 173, 246 
Ivins, H. Grant, 138, 331 

Jack, James, 49, 331 
Jackson, Andrew, 232 
Jefferson, Thomas, 231, 232, 280 
Jennings, Mary Hooper, 59, 331 
Jennings, Thomas W., 59 
Jennings, William, 59, 60, 331 
Jews, 238 

Jim Brown’s Hole, 77 
Johnson, Andrew, 6 
Johnson, Elmer W. (Buttermilk), >0, 
100, 331-32 

Johnson, Fred W., 236, 332 
Johnston's Army, 85 
“Jones-Cannon flare-up,” 123 
Jones, Fred, 78, 332 
Jones, Nathaniel V., 65, 123, 332 
Jones, Ricey, 146, 332 
Jordan River, 76-77 
Judd, Mary Grant, 5 
Juvenile Instructor , 8 

Kansas City, 89 

Kaysville, Utah, 52 

Kearns, Thomas, 174, 200, 332 

Keller, Laree, x 

Kelly, John, 332 

Kenner, Scipio Africanus, 108 

Kimball, Heber C., 37, 44, 71, 332-3 


Kimball, J. Golden, 286, 333 
Kimball, Jim, xxv 

King, William H.: as senator, 165; as- 
sessment of, 162, 184-85, 186; 
jobs of, 147; lack of support 
from, 179; life of, 333; Smoot 
and, 210; urges Moyle to Wash- 
ington, 199 

Kingsbury, Joseph T., 57, 333 
Knight, John M„ 223, 333 
Knox, Philander P., 284nl6 
Kulturkampf, xvi 

Lamont, Thomas W„ 217 
Landon, Alfred M., 333 
Laney, Hiram S., 1 19, 333 
law in early Utah, 135-37 
Lawrence, Henry W., 138, 333-34 
Law School, University of Michigan, 
xiv-xv, 107-24 
Layton, Utah, 52 
LDS church. See church 
League of Nations: Grant and, 222, 
223-24, 283-84; opponents of, 
232; Smoot and, 218-19 
Lee John D., 115, 334 
legal profession: in Utah, 63; Mormon 
attitudes toward, 10-11, 13, 14; 
Mormons in, 107-8 
legislature of 1888, 131, 140-47 
Liberal party: opposed to, 31; Fer- 
guson in, 118; legislature and, 
143; role of, 148-52; Sutherland 
and, 115; victory of, (1890), 144, 
146, 149, 158 
Liberty Loans, 102, 207 
Lincoln, Abraham, 6, 13, 63, 164, 

232, 280 

Lindsay, Brigham, 96-97, 334 
Lindsay, Cora. See Cora Lindsay 

Lindsay, Henry P„ 92, 95-98, 241, 334 

Lindsay, Millard, 96, 334 
“Liquor Deal,” 190-94 
liquor in Utah, 42, 47-50 
Little Cottonwood Canyon, 71-72 
Lloyd, John, 78, 334 
Lodge, Heniy Cabot, 225, 334 
Logan, Utah, 167, 169 
Lund, Anthon H., 147, 173, 334 
Lund, Cannon, 3, 335 
Luther, Martin, 30 
Lyman, Amasa M., 303, 335 
Lyman, Francis M.: activities of, toler- 
ated, 173; charges against, 160- 
61; life of, 335, partisanship of, 

3, 23, 224; promotes Republican- 
ism, 153-54, 166-67; son of, 303 
Lyman, Richard R., 301, 303, 335 

Macon, Georgia, 266 
Madero, Francisco, 253 
Manifesto (1890), 135, 155 
Mansion House (Nauvoo), 292 
McAdoo, William G., appoints Moyle 
as assistant, xv, 199-201; friend- 
ship of, 6, 184, 186; life of, 335; 
on currency reform, 201-5; presi- 
dential campaign of, 207-8, 226- 
31, 231-37; work of, 206-7 
McCallister, G. Stanley, 250, 335 
McClernand, John A., 157, 335-36 
McCune, A.W., 175. 195, 336 
McCune, George W., 210, 336 
McDaniels Family (North Carolina), 

McDowell County, North Carolina, 

McGuffey Readers, 55 
McKay, David O., 31, 33, 191, 276, 
306, 336 

McKean, James B, 65, 336 
McKenzie, David, 49, 336 


McKinley, William, 6, 222 
McLean, Angus W., 228, 336-37 
Margetts, Phillip, 48-49, 50, 337 
Margetts, William, 48, 337 
Maughan, Francis. See Francis 
Maughan Vernon 
medicine in Utah, 9-10 
Mellon, Andrew W„ 205, 228-29, 337 
Merida, Mexico, 255 
Merrill, Joseph F., 31, 287, 303, 337 
Mexico, trips to, 252-59 
Michigan, University of, xiv-xv, 19, 
106-24, 148 
Milwaukee, 120 
Miner, Aurelius, 108, 1 1 1, 337 
Mississippi River, 89 
Mitla, Mexico, 257-58 
modesty, at Great Salt Lake, 298-99 
Monson, Joseph, 209, 337-38 
Monson, Walter P., 209, 338 
Monte Albans (Mexico), 257 
morality in Utah, 70 
Morgan’s College, 56 
Morgan, John, 91, 99, 338 
Morganton, North Carolina, 95 

Morgenthau, Henry J., Jr., xvi, 271-75, 

Morley, Sylvanus G„ 252, 256, 338 
Mormon, Book of. See Book of Mor- 

Mormon church/Mormons. See 

Mormon culture: influence of, on poli- 
tics, ix; life in, 81-84; professions 
in, 62-63; trends in, 8-11 
Mormon History Trust Fund, xi, xii 
Mormon leaders. See church leaders 
Mormon War, 85 
Morrill Act (1862), 143 
Morris, Elias, 60, 338 

Morris, Nephi L„ 191, 192, 338 
Morrison, Frank, 203, 338 
Morrow, Dwight W., 254-55, 338-39 
Morton, “Whiskey,” 48, 50, 339 
Moscow Conference of Foreign Minis- 
ters, 276n6 

Mt. Pisgah, North Carolina, 100 
Mountain Meadows Massacre, 114-15 
Mount Airie, North Carolina, 91 

Moyle, Alice Evelyn. See Alice Evelyn 
Moyle Nelson 

Moyle, Alice Evelyn Dinwoodey: activi- 
ties of, xix, 2, 181, 229; friends 
of, 206, 277; in Mexico, 252-59; 
life of, 339; retirement and, 289; 
promise to, on polygamy, 135; 
Smoots and, 210; wedding of, 

Moyle, Elizabeth Wood: attributes of, 
10, 67-70, 77; life of, 339; mar- 
ries, 37; social status of, 59-60; 
strictness of, 78; Indians and, 74- 
75; travels to Alpine, 39 

Moyle family, ix-xi, xix, 1, 11, 97 
Moyle, Gilbert D„ 214, 240, 339 
Moyle, Henry, 52, 339 
Moyle, Henry D., xx, 33, 196, 214, 

242, 278nl0, 339-40 
Moyle, James: builds jail, 41-43; devo- 
tion of, to family history, xviii; 
education encouraged by, 56; 
mission urged by, 88; Haslam 
and, 1 15; health of, 244; life of, 
340; marriage of, 37; occupation 
of, 38; respect of, 66; social 
status of, 12-13, 16-17, 59-60; plu- 
ral wife of, xiv, 67-68; interview 
with Whitmer urged by, 125; 
wages given to, 80; work on rail- 
road of, 51; work on temple of, 

Moyle, James D., x-xii, xxv, 138, 240, 
252, 254-59, 340 


Moyle, James Henry: baptism of, 37; 
birth of, xiv, 37; brief biography 
of, xiii-xxi; death of, xx; educa- 
tion of, 51, 54-61, 107-24; temple 
endowment of, 79; history of, 1- 
36; homes of, 137-40, 289; invest- 
ments of, 289; marriage of, 127- 
29; old age of, xix-xx; ordained 
deacon, 78-79; ordained seventy, 
79; papers of, xi, xvi, xxiii; patri- 
archal blessing of, 79-80; political 
career of, xv; retirement of, xviii- 
xix, 288-89; writings of, x, xi-xii, 
xx-xxi, xxiii-xxv; youth of, xiv, 37- 
84; youthful ambitions of, 13-15 
—attributes: appearance, xiii, xvi; 
characteristics, xiii-xxi, 15; deter- 
mination, 61-63; diffidence, 58-61; 
health, 124; intimacy with Demo- 
cratic leaders, xvi; intimacy with 
Mormon leaders, xvii; finger lost, 

—endeavors: assistant treasury sec- 
retary, xv, 5, 102, 185, 186, 199- 
208, 228-29; church positions, 239- 
40; city/county attorney, 131-34, 
140; customs commissioner, xv, 
33-34, 265-73; DNC, xv; early ca- 
reer, 131-34; high councilman, xv, 
171; law school, xiv-xv, 127-28, 
131; mission, xiv, 19, 88-105; mis- 
sion president, xv, 171, 239-64; 
railroad worker, 51; special assis- 
tant to treasury secretary, xi, xv- 
xvi, 273-89; temple builder, 43-47 
—philosophy: allegiance to Demo- 
cratic party, xii, xiv, xvii, 150-51, 
225-29; conflicts with church lead- 
ers, 105, 171; criticisms of Repub- 
lican party, xii, xiv; devotion to 
F.D.R., xvi, 259-60; devotion to 
Mormonism, xii, xiv, xvii, 158-59; 
faith, 20; insights, ix-x, xiv, 237-38; 
motives, 35-36; tariff, xv, 226-27, 
237, 260-63; testimony, 103-5, 135, 
307-9, 280-82 

Moyle, James Hubert, 340 
Moyle, John Rowe, 38-40, 44, 340 
Moyle, Joseph E., 39, 40, 340 
Moyle, Louise Covey, 254 
Moyle, Margaret Anna (Maggie) Can- 
nell, 67-68, 340 
Moyle, Phillippa Beers, 89 
Moyle, Richard G., 340 
Moyle, Sara Virginia. See Sara Virginia 
Moyle Creer 

Moyle, Stephen L., 215, 341 
Moyle, Walter G„ 253, 341 
Mulvay, Jill, xxv 
Murray, Utah, 48, 56 
Mutual Improvement Association, 80 

National Cathedral, 233 
Nauvoo, Illinois, 46 
Nauvoo Legion, 141 
Nebeker, Aquila, 176, 341 
Nelson, Alice Evelyn Moyle, x-xii, xxv, 
189n30, 232n35, 241, 341 
Nelson, Harry, 341 
Nephi, Utah, 146 
Nest, The, 92 

New Deal: church opposition to, 282- 
84; devotion to, xvi; revolution 
of, 141 

Newton, Utah, 91 
New York, church in, 242-44, 249 
New York City: depression in, 87; poli- 
tics in, 121; sojourn in, xv 
New York Post, 217, 222 
New York Stake, 249 
Nibley, Charles W., 191, 192, 240, 246 
North Carolina: drinking habits in, 
168; mission in, xiv, 88-105 

Oaxaca, Mexico, 257 
Odell, George T„ 189, 341-42 



Ogden, Utah, 51, 143 
O’Laughlin, John Callan, 216, 342 
Orsmby, Oliver C., 39, 342 
Overfield, Chauncey P., 342 
Overland Stage, 73 

Palmyra, New York, 243-46 
Panama Canal, 206 
Panic of 1893, 11, 136-37 
Pantone, Lcsli, x 
Park City, Utah, 174 
Park, Hamilton G., 74, 342 
Park, John R„ 54-57, 1 12, 342 
Park, William, 98, 100, 342 
Parker, Alton B„ 177, 196, 342-43 
Parley’s Canyon, 3 
Parry John, 38, 343 
Payson, Utah, 91 
Pennsylvania, University of, 254 
Penrose, Charles W., 4, 95, 158, 173, 

Peoples party: allegiance to, 30-31, 
121; disbandonment of, xv, 148- 
52; early activity in, 131; legisla- 
ture and, 143; Richards leads, 
162-63; younger element of, 144- 

Peter (biblical), 286 
Philadelphia Mint, 199 
Pierson, Charles, 69, 76, 343 
Pike, Walter R„ 38, 343 
Pinnios grammar system, 55 
Pioneers, poverty of, 86-88 
Player William J., 46, 343 
plural marriage. See polygamy 
Pollard, Edward Albert, 13 
Pollard, Joseph, 78, 108-9, 343 
polygamy: 1904 Democratic attack 
against, 178nl4; defense of, xiv, 
xv, 1 19-21, 134-35; experience 
with, 67-70; father enters, xiv; na- 

ture of, 161; persecution of, 65- 
66; Republican opposition to, 

24; Smoot and, 176 
Powers, Orlando W., 162, 343 
Pratt, Orson, 44, 45, 344 
Pratt, Parley P„ 303, 344 
presidents, greatest, 285 
Priday, Samuel, 46, 344 
Progressive party, xv, 180nl7 
prohibition, xvii-xviii, 190-94 
prominent families, 17 
Prophets, School of the, 44 
Provo Woollen Mills, 222 
Public Health Service, U.S., 185, 205-8 
“Public Works,” 37-38 
Pueblo, Colorado, 89 
Pyramid of the Serpent, 255 
Pyramid of the Moon, 254 
Pyramid of the Sun, 254 
Pyramid of the Dwarf, 256 

Quetzalcoatl, 253-54 

Railroads in Utah, 51-54 
Raleigh, North Carolina, 95 
Rawlins, Joseph L.: assessment of, 57, 
107, career of, 162, 164-66; life 
of, 344; support for, 174, 176-77 
Rawlins, Joseph S., 107, 344 
Reformation, Protestant, 30 
Reform School, 142-43, 146 
Republican party: anti-Mormonism 
of, 4, 155-60; carpetbaggers of, 
24; church support of, xv; criti- 
cisms of, xii, xiv; evils of, 232 
Rich, Charles C., 303, 344 
Rich County, 179 
Rich, Ezra C„ 303, 344-45 
Richards, Charles C., 143, 145, 147, 
163, 345 

Richards, Franklin D., 147, 304, 345 



Richards, Franklin S.: as Peoples party 
leader, 159; at Gardo House, 

149; attributes of, 108, 111; fam- 
ily of, 304-5; in legislature, 147; 
law firm of, 129; life of, 345; 
qualities of, 162-63 
Richards, George F„ 31, 249, 304, 

306, 345 

Richards, Stephen L., 31, 301, 345 
Richmond, Missouri, xv, 125-26 
Rigby, Idaho, 98 

Rigdon, Sidney, 126, 292-93, 345-46 
Riter, W. W„ 346 

Roberts, B. H.: attributes of, xvii, 5; 
Democracy of, 162, 286; de- 
nouncement of Smoot by, 176; 
history by, 135; life of, 346; parti- 
sanship of, 214; seating fight of, 
175; time of, 250 
Robinson, Joseph T., 229-30, 346 
Rockwell, Orrin Porter, 39, 346 
Rolapp, Henry H„ 1 11, 1 19, 128-29, 
242-43, 346 

Roosevelt, Franklin D.: appointment 
by, 240, 246; Clark’s opinion of, 
284-85; devotion to, xvi, 6; De- 
seret News attacks, 171; financiers 
hale, 231-32; King fails to sup- 
port, 184-85; life of, 347; meet- 
ing with, xv, 265; Mormonism 
and, 213; opposition of church 
to, 25-26; presidential campaign 
of, 259-60; reverence for, xiv; 
service in administration of, 265- 
89; Smoot and, 213; story of, on 
SLC wide streets, 265-66; Utah 
and, 260-64; war preparations of, 
274; wealth and, 280 
Roosevelt, James, 266, 347 
Roosevelt, Theodore, 219-20, 222, 

227, 347 

Roper, Daniel C„ 230, 277, 347 
royal family concept, 291-93 
Sacred Well (Mexico), 256 

St. George, Utah, 179 
St. Louis, 88-89 
St. Mark’s Cathedral, 66 
Salisbury, North Carolina, 97 
Salmon, William W., 134, 347 
Salt Lake City: growing up in, xiv; 

Hall, 42; Jail, 41-42; Liberal vic- 
tory in, 149; memories of early, 
70-74; west side of, 37-39 
Salt Lake Herald, 7, 121, 191-92, 195 
Salt Lake House, 53, 73 
Salt Lake Republican, 191 
Salt Lake Stake, 108, 171 
Salt Lake Stake High Council, 16n25 
Salt Lake Tabernacle, 44-45 
Salt Lake Telegram, 5 
Salt Lake Temple, work on, xiv, 37, 43- 
47, 80 

Salt Lake Theater, 30, 176. 191 
Salt Lake Tribune : anti-Mormonism of, 
7, 155; compliments of, 5, 200; 
partisanship of, 192; quality of, 
285; Snow and, 174 
Sandberg, John C., 65, 348 
San Francisco Chronicle, 122 
Savonarola, Girolamo, xvii, 30 
Scandinavians, 87 
Scanlan, Lawrence, 66, 348 
School of the Prophets, 44 
Scottish Mormons, 88 
scouting, 305 

Security Program, LDS church, 277- 
80, 282 

Senate, U.S., race (1898), 194, 174-76 
Senate, U.S., race (1914), xv, 105, 178- 
81, 196 

Sessions, Gene A., xi, xii, xx-xxi 
Sessions, Perrigrine, 69, 348 
Sharp, Jeannette. Sec Jeannette Sharp 

Sharp, John, 38, 50, 118, 348 



Shaw’s Gardens, 89-90 
Sheriff, John (Jack), 51, 348 
Signature Books, ix 
Significant Mormon Diaries Series, ix 
Sillito, John, xxv 
Silver King Mine, 174 
Silver Lake, Utah, cottage at, 138-39 
Sixteenth Ward, 48, 56 
Sixteenth Ward Square, 129 
skating, ice, 77 
Slaughterville, 71, 87 
Smith, Alfred F,., xviin4, 6, 226, 
234n37, 235-37, 263, 348 
Smith, David A., 191, 348 
Smith, Elias A., 348-49 
Smith, George, 190 
Smith, George A., 305 
Smith, George Albert, 31, 32, 190, 
301, 305-6, 349 

Smith, Hyrum Mack, 191, 192, 298- 
300, 301, 302, 349 
Smith, John, 79-80, 127-28, 300, 349 
Smith, John Henry: activities of, toler- 
ated, 173; callings of, 173, 305; 
charges against, 160-61; com- 
pared to Thatcher and Roberts, 
162; life of, 349; partisanship of, 
3, 23, 181, 224; promotes Repub- 
licanism, 153-54, 158, 166-67 
Smith, Joseph, Jr.: errors of, 29, 293; 
errors of, forgotten, 187; family 
of, 291-92, 302, 303; greatness 
of, 29, 31; life of, 349; mission of 
3, 92, 244; testimony of work of, 
95, 135, 280-81; Whitmer and, 

Smith, Joseph F. (Patriarch), 25-26, 
300, 350 

Smith, Joseph F. (President): aspira- 
tions of, 298-301; compared to 
Grant, 188; death of, 190; errors 
of, forgotten, 187-88; fairness of, 

3-4; heads Con Wagon, 188-90; 
interview with, 160-61; life of, 
349-50; parentage of, 32; parti- 
sanship of, 191-96, 304-5; Repub- 
licanism of, 24-25, 153, 158-59, 
173, 224, 261-62; support of, for 
Smoot, 180-81, 216-17 
Smith, Joseph Fielding (Apostle), 298- 
300, 350 

Smith Research Associates, ix 
Smoot, Allie Eldredge, 129, 210, 350 
Smoot, Ernest, 208, 350 
Smoot-Hawley Tariff, 181 
Smoot, Reed: 1914 campaign against, 
xv, 178-81; 1920 campaign 
against, 215-25; analysis of, 181- 
84; church in Washington and, 
208-10; compared to Rawlins, 
165; demands of, 228; demeanor 
of, 210-15; future of, 306; influ- 
ence of 262-63; life of, 350 liq- 
uor deal and, 192-94 
“Smoot, The Book of,” 193-94 
Snow, Franklin W„ 223, 350-51 
Snow, Leroi C, 297-98, 351 
Snow, Lorenzo: aspirations of, 297- 
98, 301, 302; errors of, forgot- 
ten, 187; life of, 351; qualities of, 
34, 173-74; Republicanism of, 


Snow, Zera, 107, 351 
Snow, Zerubbabel, 107, 147, 351 
Social Hall, 74 
Solomon (biblical), 286 
South, anti-Mormon violence in, 101-4 
South Carolina, 99 
Southern States Mission: conditions 
in, 93-94, 104; journey to, 88, 90; 
service in, xiv, 6, 85-105 
Spence, Alexander M., 91, 97, 102, 


Spencer, Clarissa (Clint) Young, 60- 
61, 128, 351 


Spencer, Daniel S., 133, 351 
Spencer, John D., 61, 351-52 
Spinden, Herbert J., 252, 352 
Standingjoseph, 92, 103, 241, 352 
statehood, deal for, 24-25, 157-60 
Stevens, Frank B., 30, 352 
Stockdale, William, 46, 352 
Stokes County, North Carolina, 91, 
stonecutters, xiv, 38, 41-43 
Stout, Hosea, 147, 352 
Supreme Court, U.S.: corrupt justice 
of, 134; F.D.R.’s reforms of, 287; 
opposition of, to New Deal, 185; 
Richards argues before, 111; 
Sutherland on, 113nll, 114 
Surry County, North Carolina, 91-92, 

Sutherland, George: 1916 campaign 
of, 179; anti-Mormonism of, 116- 
18; compared to Henderson, 

162; in Senate, 211; life of, 352- 
53; on Supreme Court, 113nl 1, 
114; rooming with, 112-16 
Swanner’s Jewelry Store, 108 
Swanson, Claude A., 226, 230, 353 

Tabernacle Choir, 250 
Tabernacle, Salt Lake, 44-45 
Talmage, James E., 250, 353 
Tammany Hall, 121, 231, 234 
Tanner, Nathan, Jr., Ill, 353 
Tar River, North Carolina, 100 
Taylor, A. Bruce, 63, 107, 353 
Taylor, John: aspirations of, 296-97, 
301; attributes of, 15, 107; bless- 
ing of, 109-11, 118-19; errors of, 
forgotten, 187; life of, 353; 
nephew of, 303; polygamy and, 
134, 155 

Taylor, John W„ 296-97, 301, 303, 353 
Taylor, N. W„ 91, 353 
Teapot Dome Scandal, 232-35 

Teasdale, George, 96, 354 
Temple Block, 71 

Temple, Salt Lake. See Salt Lake Tem- 

Tennant, Thomas A., 78, 354 
Thatcher, George W., 146, 176, 354 

Thatcher, Moses: career of, 166-70; 
Democracy of, 162, 286; life of, 
354; opposition of, 176-77; ri- 
valry of, with Cannon, 150; sen- 
ate campaign of, 174-75; support 
of, 177 

Thomas, Elbert D„ 46, 91, 229, 354 
Thomas, Moroni, 354 
Thompson, Brent, xxv 
Thurman, Allen G„ 122-23, 354-55 
Thurman, Samuel R., Ill, 123, 147, 
162, 355 

Tilden, Samuel, 122, 355 
Tintic, Utah, 114 
Tithing Office, 70, 8] 

Tooele, Utah, 69 

Toronto, Joseph B., 57, 60, 128-29, 


Townsend House, 53, 161 
Treasury Department, service in, 199- 
229, 263-64 

Tribune Building, 53, 65, 73 
truth, nature of, 285-86 
Tullidge, Edward W., 85, 355-56 
Tuttle, Daniel S., 66, 356 
Twentieth Ward, 50, 71, 100 
Twenty-first Ward, 71 

Uintah, Utah, 51-52 

Underwood, Oscar W., 234, 262-63, 


Underwood Tariff, 196, 227 
Union Academy Building, 57 
Union Pacific Railroad: importance 


of, 50, 51, 163; passes on, 133- 
34; travel on, 89; work on, 23, 38 
United Order, 281-82 
Ursenbach, Maureen, xxv 
Utah Central Railroad, 53 
Utah Central Railroad Station, 73, 78 
Utah Commission, 157 
Utah County, 145 
Utah Expedition, 85 
Utah-Idaho Sugar Company, 49 
Utah, law in early, 107-8, 135-37 
Utah Northern Railroad, 176 
Utah Power & Light Company, 217-18 
Utah Tropical Fruit Company, 253 
Utah, University of, 143 
Utah War, 85 
Utes, 75 

Uxmal (Mexico), 252, 255-56 

Valley House, 161 
Valley Tan, 48, 160 
Van Buren, Martin, 180 
Van Cott, Ray, 356 
Van Cott, Waldemar, 1 19, 356 
Varney, Samuel, 81, 356 
Vernon, Francis Maughan, 234, 356 
Versailles, Treaty of. See League of Na- 

Virginia, 168 

Wadell, Isaac, 147, 356 
Walker Brothers, 12, 38, 136, 138 
Walker House, 53 
Walker, Joseph R„ 138, 357 
Wall, E.A., 178, 357 
Wallace, Henry A., 281-82, 357 
Wallace, William R„ 179, 229, 357 
Walsh, Thomas J., 262, 357 
Walter Reed Army Hospital, 233 
Warrum, Noble, 195, 357-58 

Washington, D.C., church in, 247, 208- 

Washington Post, 216 
Weber County, 145 
Weber River, 52 
Weber State University, x 
Webster Debating Society, 117, 123 
Welfare Plan, LDS church, 277-80, 282 
Welling, Milton H., 212, 358 
Wells, Charles H„ 253, 358 
Wells, Daniel H.: as counselor, 296; 
drinking habits of, 41-42; life of, 
358; presence of, 64, 148; speech 
of, 44; Whig leanings of, 260 
Wells, Emmeline B., 191, 358 
Wells, Heber M„ 222, 223, 229, 358 
Wellsville, Utah, 91 
Welsh Mormons, 88 
West, Caleb, 141, 358-59 
West Point (Military Academy), 14, 

108, 189 

West, Wilbur, 242, 359 
whiskey in Zion, 42, 47-50 
Whitmer, David, xv, 125-26, 292-93, 


Whitney, Horace G., 49, 359 
Whitney, Horace K., 49, 359 
Whitney, Orson F„ 17, 49, 128, 359 
Wilkesboro, North Carolina, 95 
Wilkes County, North Carolina, 98 
Williams, Parley L„ 107-8, 124, 133- 
34, 359 

Williams, William N„ 239, 360 
Wilmington, North Carolina, 95 
Wilson Hotel, 73 

Wilson, Woodrow: attributes of, 6, 

184, 186, 196; Clark’s opinion 
of, 284; death of, 97; greatness 
of, 218-19; invitation of, to Wash- 
ington, 199-201; life of, 360; mar- 
tyrdom of, 225, 231-33; service 



in, administration of, xv, 199- 
238; tariff and, 227, 260 
Winder, John R., 96, 149, 173, 360 
Wines, Ira D., 253, 360 
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, 97, 

Wise, Jasper, 98, 360 
Witnesses, Three, 126 
Witte, Lindsay, 102-103, 360 
women’s suffrage, 184-85 
Wood, Daniel, 69, 76 
Wood, Elizabeth. See Elizabeth Wood 

Wood, Wilford C„ 2-3, 361 
Woodin, William H., 361 
Woodruff, Abraham Owen, 297, 301, 
302, 361 

Woodruff, Wilford: aspirations of, 

297, 301; attributes of, 34, 135, 
155; Democracy of, 173; errors 
of, forgotten, 187; interview 
with, 160-61; life of, 361; votes 
of, 224 

Woods Cross, Utah, 68 
Woods, George L., 64, 361 
Word of Wisdom: Grant and, 134; ide- 
als of, 18, 42, 47-50, 79; 

Thatcher and, 167-69; violations 
of, 244-46 

Young, Alfales, 63, 107, 361-62 
Young, Alice Creer, x 
Young, Alonzo, 223, 262 
Young, Brigham: aspirations of, for 
sons, 291-96; canal built by, 72; 
city plans of, 266; counselors of, 
41, 305; criticisms of, 33; death 
of, xiv, 43, 85; Democracy of, 

261; errors of, 29, 187; fanati- 
cism of, 66; father hired by, 43; 
grave of, 17; greatness of, 29, 83- 

84, 85-86; lawyers of, 15, 63; lead- 
ership of, 83; life of, 362; Moun- 
tain Meadows Massacre and, 1 14- 
15; office staff of, 49; partners 
of, 50; patronage of, 124; philoso- 
phy of, 261-62; presence of, 147, 
158, 163, 176; property of, 60, 
70-71; sons of, 107-8, 189, 291- 
96; United Order and, 281; Val- 
ley Tan Doctrine of, 160; work 
for, 38 

Young, Brigham, Jr., 132, 297, 302, 


Young, Brigham Heber, 362 
Young, Clarissa (Clint). See Clarissa 
Young Spencer 

Young, Feramorz Little, 108, 362 
Young, Harriet Amelia Folsom, 50, 
60n58, 362 

Young, Harriet (Hattie) Hooper, 59, 
128, 363 

Young, John W„ 294-96, 363 
Young, Joseph, 15, 107, 363 
Young, Joseph A., 39, 363 
Young, Joseph Don Carlos, 108, 363 
Young, LeGrand: as attorney, 13, 107- 
8, 111, 124; at Gardo House, 

149; life of, 263; qualities of, 163- 

Young, Owen D., 186, 363-63 
Young, Richard W.: at Gardo House, 
149; friendship of, 223; life of, 
364; presence of, 14, 25, 39, 45 
Young, Seymour B., 107, 364 
Young, Willard, 14, 59, 108, 364 
Yucatan, 255 

Zane, Charles S., 132-33, 364 
Zane,John M., 364 
Zion, Gathering of, 86-88 


Mormon Democrat: 

The Religious and Political Memoirs of 
James Henry Moyle 

Designed by Ray Morales 
and Connie Disney 

Composed by Brent Corcoran 
in ITC New Baskerville 

Printed by Publishers Press 
on Hammermill Acent Opaque Smooth 
an acid-free paper 

Handbound and sewn by Schaffer 
Bindery in Arrestox Linen with Rainbow 
Linen endsheet paper